Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY (NAME OF CAPITAL)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why his Department continues to describe the capital of Turkey as Angora; and whether he will give instructions that in future it is to be called Ankara, in view of the fact that it has reverted to that name in Turkey since the establishment of the Republic.

The Minister of State (Mr. Richard Law): It is the practice of the Foreign Office to use "Angora" in documents and communications which are in English, because "Angora" is the conventional Anglicised form of this place-name. In communications in foreign languages, the Foreign Office uses "Ankara."

Mr. Stokes: Is the Minister aware that a good deal of irritation still arises in Turkey from calling the town by the wrong name?

Mr. Law: I must say that I have seen no evidence that this practice does cause irritation.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECT'S PROPERTY, SICILY (TAXATION)

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the property of an Englishman in Sicily is being made to pay rates and taxes at the present time; and how these demands are to be met, in view of the fact that no money can be sent out of this country.

Mr. Law: The Italian banks entrusted with the management of British property during the state of war, including the period of armistice, attend to the payment of rates and taxes. I understand that, if the income from the property is insufficient to cover such purposes, the Italian banks make advances on standard commercial terms, pending the final settlement between His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government and the resumption of responsibility by the owners. No case is known where such advances have not been made as required, but I would be prepared to take up any such case in the appropriate quarter.

Professor Savory: Has my right hon. Friend considered the case, the details of which I handed to his Parliamentary Private Secretary?

Mr. Law: It is being considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARAB STATES (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House information about any decisions that were reached at a recent meeting between Their Majesties the King of Egypt and the King of Saudi Arabia, relating to future co-operation between the Arab States of the Middle East; and if any alteration of our existing treaties with these states is involved.

Mr. Law: I regret that I cannot make any statement regarding the matters discussed at the meeting, but I think that my hon. Friend may be assured that the discussions between the heads of these States, each of which is in particularly close relations with His Majesty's Government, are likely to have been inspired by the most friendly feelings towards this country.

Major-General Sir Edward Spears: Would my right hon. Friend take this opportunity of sending a message of good will, sympathy and support to the Foreign Ministers of the Arab States who are meeting in Cairo this week?

Mr. Law: I will consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ADVISORY COMMISSION

Mr. Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider discussing with other Powers of


the United Nations the advisability of extending the function of the European Advisory Commission beyond that of dealing only with armistice terms and conditions.

Mr. Law: There is no such limitation as my hon. Friend suggests on the functions of the European Advisory Commission. These extend to European questions arising as the war develops, which the Government concerned may consider appropriate to refer to it.

Mr. Price: Will my right hon. Friend remember that the Foreign Secretary has said in this House that the Advisory Commission can deal only with the armistice terms and the ending of the war in Europe, and cannot deal with post-war questions? Is it not time that some arrangement was made for dealing with them between the conferences of the Great Powers?

Mr. Law: I was not aware that my right hon. Friend said that in precisely those terms. In fact, other matters besides armistice terms have been referred to the E.A.C. by the Governments concerned. With regard to the latter part of the question, my hon. Friend will have seen the Declaration on liberated Europe which emerged from the Yalta Conference, and he will understand that these matters are very much in the minds of the Governments concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ CANAL COMPANY (SHARES)

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what changes have taken place since 1939 in the shareholdings of the Suez Canal.

Mr. Law: The shares are bearer shares, and there is no means of ascertaining what transactions have taken place.

Mr. Granville: In view of the strategic importance of this great international highway, will my right hon. Friend ascertain whether the shares held by the Italian Government have not been disposed of to the nominees of Nazi Germany; and may I ask if he is watching that the Nazis are not getting away with the swag?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir. We are watching very carefully the attempts of the Nazis to get away with the swag, but, as I

say, these shares are bearer shares, and it is extremely difficult, indeed impossible, to trace them at this moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA

Relief Administration

Mr. Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any arrangement has been come to between U.N.R.R.A. and the Committee for National Liberation in Yugoslavia for the administration of relief from famine and distress in that country.

Mr. Law: The introduction of relief supplies to Yugoslavia is at the present stage the responsibility of the Allied military authorities, with whom U.N.R.R.A. personnel are working in association. It is intended that U.N.R.R.A. shall take over this responsibility from the military authorities as soon as circumstances permit, and I am informed that an agreement relating to U.N.R.R.A.'s period of responsibility is under negotiation between U.N.R.R.A. and the Yugoslav authorities concerned.

Captain Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend make arrangements with U.N.R.R.A. that the food and relief are given to the people of all races and creeds in Yugloslavia, and not only to supporters of the partisans?

Mr. Law: I am sure that U.N.R.R.A. will make the best and fairest arrangements possible, but my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that His Majesty's Government are not responsible for U.N.R.R.A.

Freedom of Election

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the policy of the allied powers to ensure that the people of Yugoslavia have the same freedom to elect the Government they desire on the same basis as the people of Greece.

Mr. Law: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by the Prime Minister in the course of the Debate on 18th January which fully covers this question.

Miss Ward: Can the Minister say at what time he proposes that this election shall take place, and what machinery he is to use?

Mr. Law: No, Sir, I do not think I can add anything to the Prime Minister's statement, and I recommend my hon. Friend to refer to it.

SYRIA AND LEBANON

Sir E. Spears: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has now considered the statement made by the French Minister of Information that France hoped for the eventual independence of Syria and the Lebanon; and what steps he intends taking to implement this country's guarantee of the full independence of these countries.

Mr. Law: I have made inquiries regarding the statement attributed to the French Minister of Information, but it has not so far been traced. If my hon. and gallant Friend will give details of the time and context of the statement, I will look into the matter further. As regards the second part of the Question, my hon. and gallant Friend will be aware that the independence of the Lavant States was proclaimed by the French Government and endorsed by His Majesty's Government in 1941, and that it has since been recognised by the Governments of the United States and the U.S.S.R. and many other countries.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will have incorporated in any White Paper setting out the promises made to Syria and the Lebanon the declarations made by General Catroux in June and November, 1941, addressed to the Governments and peoples of these two countries.

Mr. Law: I will certainly consider the hon. Member's suggestion.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the announcement of the French Foreign Minister that France would defend her prerogatives in Syria and the Lebanon and had at her disposal a military force for this purpose; and whether, in view of our guarantee, he will ensure that any negotiations that may take place between the French and the Syrian and Lebanese Governments do not take place under the threat of force.

Mr. Law: I have seen, reports of the statement referred to, but my information is that it was not precisely in the terms

which my hon. and gallant Friend has quoted. As regards the second part of the Question, the discussions should certainly be free and unhampered by threats of force from either side, and it is the intention of His Majesty's Government if necessary to use their influence to this end.

Sir A. Southby: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the danger of misapprehensions going about at the present time in a matter of this kind, and will he take steps to convey to the French Government the view of the British Government that, having guaranteed the independence of the people of Syria and the Lebanon, we should view with considerable apprehension any threat of force being applied to them?

Mr. Law: Certainly, Sir, we did endorse the declaration of the French Government. That is certainly true, and we are very much interested in the independence of these States. Nevertheless, I am sure the House would agree that this is a matter primarily for discussion and negotiation between the States themselves, and I doubt very much whether these negotiations are likely to be helped by our debating the matter too much in this House at the present time.

Sir A. Southby: When my right hon. Friend says that we endorsed the proclamation of the freedom of these States, was that not taken, by the Syrians and Lebanese, to be a statement that, in honour, we were bound to see that, having got their independence, they will keep it?

Mr. Law: No, Sir, I do not think endorsement of the French declaration is the same thing as a guarantee.

Sir A. Southby: Then what is it?

Mr. Law: When we endorsed the declaration of the French Government, we said we recognised the independence of these States, and we have had a Minister there for some time and have had diplomatic representation with these States for some time past.

Mr. Raikes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has now received a copy, or a telegraphic summary of the notes addressed by the Syrian and Lebanese Foreign Ministers to the French Delegate-General on the


subject of the Syrian and Lebanese armed forces and the diplomatic relations between the States and France.

Mr. Law: Copies of the documents in question have not yet reached me.

EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (RUSSIAN REPRESENTATION)

Sir Alfred Beit: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the Soviet Government does not maintain diplomatic representatives in Finland, Bulgaria, Roumania and Hungary, he has any information how Russia is represented in them.

Mr. Law: The Control Commissions in Finland, Bulgaria, Rumania and Hungary being under the general direction of the Soviet High Command, the Soviet Presidents and the Soviet elements of the Commissions represent the U.S.S.R. in those countries.

Sir A. Beit: Did not my right hon. Friend inform me last week that this country had political representatives, apart from the Allied Control Commission, in these countries? I want to ascertain whether any similar representation is maintained by Russia.

Mr. Law: No, Sir. The Soviet are only represented on the Control Commission, As I told my hon. Friend, we have political representatives as well.

Sir A. Beit: Does that mean that the Control Commission has some sort of political and diplomatic status?

Mr. Law: No, Sir. It is the function of the Control Commission to supervise the execution of the armistice. Our purpose in having political representatives too, is additional to that, and to look after British interests generally in those countries.

FRANCE AND BELGIUM (RELIEF SUPPLIES)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the facilities for economic assistance afforded by U.N.R.R.A. were brought to the notice of the French and Belgian Governments; at what time was such

assistance refused; and what steps were taken by His Majesty's Government to bring to the notice of the French and Belgian Governments the political and military consequences of such refusal.

Mr. Law: The French and Belgian Governments are themselves members of the Council of U.N.R.R.A. and have, therefore, always been fully informed of its constitution, terms of reference and its activities.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: While that may very well be the case, is it not becoming increasingly clear that the economic power in the hands of U.N.R.R.A. is altogether insufficient for dealing with the needs caused by war on the modern scale?

Mr. Law: I think that my Noble Friend is under some misapprehension. I do not think there was ever any question of U.N.R.R.A. being responsible for the whole economic rehabilitation of Europe or the Far East. U.N.R.R.A. has its part to play and other agencies have their parts to play.

Mr. Shinwell: Cannot we induce the Government to take a very serious view of the economic situation in France and Belgium and the need for bringing speedy relief in the form of food and other necessities to these people; and does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the great bearing of this matter on the future of Europe and our relations with those countries?

Mr. Law: There is no need for my hon. Friend to induce the Government to take a serious view of this. We are fully conscious of the importance of these matters, and perhaps it would be better if my hon. Friend would await the full statement which I have to make at the end of Questions on this very subject.

GREECE (POLITICAL AGREEMENT)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can make any statement on the progress of events in Greece; and if he has now received a reliable report on the trial of persons accused of bearing arms against the State and the application to such persons of the promised amnesty.

Mr. Law: As the hon. Member will be aware, an agreement was signed between the Greek Government and E.L.A.S. on 12th February, and I am sure that the House will welcome this most satisfactory outcome to the recent negotiations. The agreement marks a notable advance towards a final and just solution of the differences with which Greece has been divided and tormented. The agreement reaffirms the pledges already given by the Greek Government that there will be an amnesty for all political crimes committed since the disturbances began on 3rd December. The amnesty law provides that the trials of those not covered by the amnesty will be by civil courts and that cases already tried by military courts will be retried by civil courts. No one will be prosecuted for bearing arms against the State.

Mr. Driberg: Would it be possible to convey congratulations to the Minister Resident in the Mediterranean for the very statesmanlike way in which he has contributed to reconciliation in Greece by adopting most of the proposals put forward by the Labour Party Conference and the Government's critics in this House and in the Press?

Sir A. Southby: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will at the same time convey to General Scobie and the British Army our appreciation of the fact that they made it possible for this happy solution to be reached?

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the Minister whether we can take it that the statements made against E.A.M. will now be withdrawn, as they have no application, in view of the agreement accomplished by E.A.M. representatives at the Conference?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Coloured Personnel

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that on 17th January, at an R.A.F. station of which he has been informed, the senior W.A.A.F. officer read out to W.A.A.F. personnel a message advising them against association off duty with coloured volunteer airmen from Jamaica who were then about to arrive at this station; and if he will make it clear to all concerned that it is not the policy of the R.A.F. to encourage racial discrimination of any kind.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): At the R.A.F. Station in question, members of the W.A.A.F. were reminded of the Air Ministry standing instruction that on R.A.F. stations all personnel should observe towards volunteer airmen from Jamaica the nomal standards of service comradeship. No order against association off the station was given and any such order would be contrary to Air Ministry policy. I am, however, taking steps to remove any wrong impression which may prevail.

Maintenance Work (Technicians)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is now able to reduce the number of civilian skilled technicians and craftsmen employed by the Air Ministry works directorate on maintenance work on sites that have been placed on a care-and-maintenance basis and so enable them to be available to meet the needs of the civil population.

Sir A. Sinclair: The sites to which my hon. Friend refers must be held ready for operational use at short notice. The labour available for this purpose and for the maintenance of sites in use is less than is needed and I am afraid that a reduction would not be practicable in present circumstances.

Mr. Lipson: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether it would be possible to employ some of these men concerned at least on part-time, in view of the fact that some of them are not at all fully occupied at present and of the considerable population in the area?

Sir A. Sinclair: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any men who are not fully occupied, I will look into the matter.

Mr. Lipson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have already sent such information?

Officers (Resignations)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many non-Regular officers were informed in writing by Department QJ of his Ministry in the first six months of the war that their appointment would be for the duration of hostilities, without any reservation that their services be dispensed with for any cause other than inefficiency or unsatisfactory conduct and in what manner the


services of such officers will be dispensed with prior to general demobilisation in the event of the officers declining to accede to the request from the Air Council to tender their resignation.

Sir A. Sinclair: Some 3,000 officers were commissioned in the R.A.F.V.R. during the first six months of the war. The letters of appointment of these and other officers stated that the appointment was for the duration of hostilities. This statement obviously referred to the maximum period of tenure of the commission. The service of all R.A.F. officers is subject to King's Regulations and Air Council Instructions which provide that an officer may be called upon to resign his commission at any time for any reason should the circumstances in the opinion of the Air Council require it, and that if he declines, his commission will be terminated.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is it not the fact that officers have been requested to resign when their services appeared to become redundant?

Sir A. Sinclair: Certainly, Sir, as I stated in my answer.

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether an officer who, at the request of the Air Council, has tendered his resignation is entitled to the same period of leave, namely, 56 days, from the date on which he ceases to perform duty, as officers whose services will be dispensed with on general demobilisation; and, if not, what is the period granted.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that non-regular officers in the R.A.F., over 50 years of age, who may be compulsorily required to resign their commissions under A.M.O. A.36, dated 18th January, 1945, are concerned that the conditions of retirement therein stated are financially much less favourable than those outlined in the Government's White Paper on Reallocation of Man Power and the Air Ministry's publication "The Next Phase," circulated in September, 1944; and will he take steps to apply the financial terms of the latter to officers compulsorily retired under A.M.O. A.36.

Sir A. Sinclair: An officer who tenders his resignation at the request of the Air Council on becoming redundant is entitled to 42 days' leave. In addition, he will, in due course, receive a war

gratuity and any post-war credit to which he may be entitled. The release benefits outlined in the White Paper and in "The Next Phase" apply only to officers released after the Release Scheme has started to operate and have been drawn up in the light of the circumstances which are likely to prevail at that time.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is my right hon. Friend going to put these officers who are now requested to resign their commissions on the same footing as other officers in the matter of leave?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. As has been explained to the House on behalf of the Government, it has been decided in respect of all three Services that the arrangements for leave to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers will apply only after the conclusion of stage 1 of the war.

Mr. Lipson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these officers, who were asked to resign their commissions because of redundancy, feel very strongly that they are getting rather a raw deal in this matter, because under the White Paper they were entitled to 56 days, plus one day for every completed month of foreign service, whereas they now get 42 days; and is there any real reason for this differentiation, as the men do not want to resign?

Sir A. Sinclair: The reasons have been explained to the House, and it is the policy of the Government that the scheme embodied in "The Next Phase" will only come into operation at the end of the first stage of the war.

A.T.C.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many members of Norfolk squadrons of the A.T.C. have been directed into the Army; and whether this policy will continue.

Sir A. Sinclair: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the Question could not be obtained without undue expenditure of time and labour both in my Department and in the Ministry of Labour and National Service. As regards the second part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Acton (Captain Longhurst) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) on 15th November last.

Major Kimball: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will alter the existing regulations in order to allow officers of the A.T.C. to retain their uniforms upon resignation.

Sir A. Sinclair: I am looking into this matter, and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend in due course.

Major Kimball: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the original grant of £20 did not cover the full cost of these uniforms; and would he consider allowing these ex-officers to retain such part of that uniform as would be useful in civilian life?

Sir A. Sinclair: I will certainly look into the whole question.

W.A.A.F. (Marriage Leave)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Air why, while A.T.S. or W.R.N.S. get seven days' leave, plus 48 hours' leave, and plus 14 days' unpaid leave when they are married, for their honeymoon, W.A.A.F. are not allowed the 14 days on the unemployed list.

Sir A. Sinclair: Subject to the requirements of the Service, members of the W.A.A.F. are normally granted 14 days' leave with pay, when they get married. For this, they use their ordinary leave, but if there is not enough ordinary leave due to them they are, at the discretion of their Commanding Officers, granted compassionate leave with pay to make up the total of 14 days. I understand that the arrangements in the A.T.S. and the W.R.N.S. are not precisely as stated in the Question, but while members of these Services may obtain more leave in the aggregate when they are married than members of the W.A.A.F., a large proportion of their leave is unpaid.

Sir I. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman fill in this gap, which he has admitted, and see that these girls get the same time as the others?

Sir A. Sinclair: As I say, the facts about the others are not quite correctly stated in my hon. and gallant Friend's Question. The W.A.A.F. get a rather different scale, and I have no reason to believe that the arrangements which they have do not give them satisfaction.

Viscountess Astor: Since they feel they have a grievance, will my right hon. Friend look into that?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, but I have made careful inquiries and I am sure there is none. Actually, if we did try to assimilate our arrangements to those of the other two Services, I am afraid the result would be that the members of the W.A.A.F. would probably get more leave and less pay, and that members of the other Services would get more pay and less leave, and no one would be satisfied.

Requisitioned Premises (Release)

Mr. Kirby: asked the Secretary of State for Air for what purpose the privately owned stores, of whose location he has been informed, were requisitioned by his Department; what the stores are used for now; and whether it is intended to release them for trading purposes at an early date.

Sir A. Sinclair: These premises were requisitioned in 1942 for use as part of a W.A.A.F. reception centre. They now form part of a personnel despatch centre. I regret that I cannot hold out hope of their early release.

Mr. Kirby: Does my right hon. Friend realise that Lancashire workpeople are very war-weary and would like to take advantage of the amenities of this store and café when having their brief holiday in this seaside resort?

Sir A. Sinclair: I can only say that I should not wish to keep these premises a week longer than was absolutely necessary for the requirements of the Service. If my hon. Friend has any other proposals to make, with regard to alternative premises available in the vicinity, of course, I shall be very glad to consider them.

Mr. Kirby: Is it not a fact that large numbers of R.A.F. and W.A.A.F. have gone overseas, thus releasing more suitable accommodation than these stores?

Sir A. Sinclair: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have looked carefully into this since he put this Question on the Paper, and we require these premises in that vicinity.

Personnel, Far East (Age Limit)

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether there is a


maximum age limit to R.A.F. personnel sent to the Far East; and how those in the upper age group will obtain repatriation as the war proceeds.

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir. Subject to the requirements of the Service, the maximum age for posting to the Far East is 42 years for airmen below the rank of sergeant, and 50 years for airmen of that rank and above and for officers other than Regular officers and officers who volunteer. Officers and men serving in the Far Eastern theatre will be repatriated on completion of their tour of duty or earlier if they become eligible for release under the Government Scheme for release of transfer from the Forces.

Mr. Williams: Can the Minister clarify the matter, as there is a great deal of misunderstanding among the Servicemen themselves?

Sir A. Sinclair: If my hon. Friend will look at the answer which I have given, he will find it quite clear.

AIR ACCIDENTS

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will publish the findings of courts of inquiry into accidents to aircraft of R.A.F. Transport Command where casualties have resulted to officers of the Navy and Army or to civilians on flights outside active operational theatres of war.

Sir A. Sinclair: I shall always give the House as much information as I can about accidents to R.A.F. aircraft, but it would be contrary to long-standing custom, and would not be in the public interest, to disclose the findings of courts of inquiry, which are privileged. The foreknowledge that they might be published would impose a restraint upon both court and witnesses, whereas it is essential that all concerned should speak freely, and if need be criticise fearlessly, without regard to rank or person.

Sir R. Glyn: Can my right hon. Friend inform the House whether, if it appears in the Press that certain types of aircraft which will be used for civil aviation have been involved, such statements will be corrected to show there is no fault in the construction of the type of machine concerned?

Sir A. Sinclair: I shall be most anxious to give to the House, on my own responsibility, all possible information about accidents to R.A.F. aircraft.

Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the constitutional difficulties which might arise if he refuses the request of this House to publish the report of the court of inquiry concerning the death of two hon. Members?

Sir A. Sinclair: That is another question. I am asked here about accidents to Transport Command aircraft, and the accident to which my Noble Friend refers has nothing whatever to do with Transport Command.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the machines used by Transport Command are given all those facilities to make flying safe that are provided for operational needs?

Sir A. Sinclaim: Oh, certainly, Sir.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not a fact that all Service courts of inquiry and their findings are confidential?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he has any statement to make on the recent air accident in which British officers and officials lost their lives on their way to the conference between the Prime Minister, President Roosevelt and Marshal Stalin; whether the B.O.A.C. or the R.A.F. is responsible for the arrangements for these flights; and whether it is his intention to hold a special inquiry on the causes and circumstances of this loss.

Sir A. Sinclair: I deeply regret the loss of life caused by this accident. The aircraft was a York belonging to the Royal Air Force. It was of standard design and fitted with standard equipment. The Royal Air Force pilot and crew were highly experienced. The aircraft was obliged to come down in the sea. A court of inquiry to investigate the cause of the accident is now sitting. As regards the second part of the Question, flights of this kind are carried out either by aircraft of the Royal Air Force or aircraft of the British Overseas Airways Corporation depending on the availability of aircraft and the route flown.

Mr. Granville: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a good deal of serious concern in the public mind at these accidents; and in view of the fact that this might have happened to any of the aircraft engaged on this flight, can he give us an assurance that all the machines engaged in the Prime Minister's flight were given adequate mechanical supervision and inspection right throughout the journey?

Sir A. Sinclair: Really I cannot give an assurance about "right throughout the journey." I can give an assurance that the maintenance arrangements of Transport Command are highly efficient, and I shall be very glad indeed to give the fullest possible information when my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) raises this Question on Thursday.

Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the allegations which have been made, in private, in many quarters, that on this exceptionally difficult flying route the types of machines used are not suitable for the appalling storms and electrical disturbances which constantly arise?

Sir A. Sinclair: Certainly, I will very gladly give my attention to the point which my Noble Friend has raised. At the same time, if he wishes my opinion, from my personal knowledge so far as it goes, I think that this machine was entirely suitable for the route on which it was flying, and that machines of this type have been flying on routes to the East with great success and with a very low rate of accident for some long time.

Mr. A. Bevan: Are any other Departments associated with the right hon. Gentleman's Department in this court of inquiry? Otherwise, will it not be the fact that the Air Ministry will be inquiring into the behaviour of the Air Ministry and coming to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the Air Ministry?

Sir A. Sinclair: There is no Department in the State which has such a tremendous incentive to maintain a low rate of accident, and to improve it by every possible means.

Mr. A. Bevan: May I have an answer to my question? Is it intended to associate any other Department of State with the court of inquiry into this accident?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. The court of inquiry is now sitting. A most thorough and searching inquiry will be made and no Department, as I have said, has a greater interest in obtaining the facts than the Air Ministry.

Mr. Bellenger: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to inquire particularly as to a statement which has been made in various quarters that this plane came down into the sea, owing to a shortage of petrol; and in view of a somewhat similar statement which has been made in connection with another accident, will he carefully inquire into this matter?

Sir A. Sinclair: Let me put my hon. Friend's mind at rest on one point. I do know that for the flight that was planned for that aircraft, there was a wide and ample margin of petrol supplied, but certainly that is a point which will emerge in the course of the inquiry.

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: May I ask whether inquiries will be made whether some of these accidents are not due to the fact that the importance of the journey is so very urgent, that these trips are undertaken where, ordinarily, they might not be undertaken in view of the weather conditions prevailing?

Sir A. Sinclair: An inquiry will be made into each specific accident. It is very difficult for me to answer questions referring in general terms to these accidents. I think I ought to tell the House now that in the month of January—because Transport Command deserves and requires the confidence of the House in carrying out its duties—Transport Command flew 4,000,000 miles without a single accident involving death or injury to a passenger.

Mr. Granville: May I ask the Secretary of State, in view of the fact that he now has a number of these inquiries on his hands and that we shall only get half an hour on the Adjournment to-morrow, whether he will make representations to get a full day's Debate on this? In any event, will he see that a statement is made to the House of Commons when he has expedited the findings of these inquiries?

Sir A. Sinclair: I have always stated that I am most anxious to give the information to this House. This Command needs the strength which the confidence this House can give it and I regard it as my responsibility to give this House the necessary information.

AIRCRAFT FACTORY PREMISES

Mr. Oldfield: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether his attention has been called to the serious position arising out of the closing of certain parts of a new factory, erected in Openshaw, Manchester, for the purpose of storage, resulting in the stopping of skilled men and unskilled men and women; and why a new and up-to-date factory, with all modern amenities, should be used for such a purpose, in view of post-war reconstruction instead of a much older factory.

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): The closing of a part of the factory was due to a change in the production programme and the desirability of relieving the labour position in the North west. The accommodation is being used temporarily with the consent of my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, for the storage of aircraft components awaiting final assembly. It is essential to store these components within a reasonable distance of the plant where they are to be assembled and there are no other suitable premises available. The placing in alternative employment of the workers concerned is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, but I understand that no undue difficulty is expected in placing the workers in other employment.

Mr. Oldfield: In view of the information which has come to me only this morning that three engineering firms are waiting to take over part of this factory, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider releasing the factory at once?

Sir S. Cripps: This matter has been very thoroughly considered, in association with the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Production, and the action taken is considered to be in the best interests.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production for what purpose his Department is using certain premises which have been indicated to him; and whether, as these premises are situate in a heavily populated area, he intends to release them for ordinary trading purposes at an early date.

Sir S. Cripps: The premises to which my hon. Friend refers are being used for

the production of aircraft equipment of urgent operational importance I regret that there is no prospect of releasing the premises for civilian trading until the demand for this equipment is substantially reduced

Mr. Kirby: Is it not a fact that a large number of other factory premises are being released? Is it not possible to stop production in this heavily populated area like this?

Sir S. Cripps: It would not be possible without forgoing instruments which are needed at the present moment for operational purposes.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

Party Publications (B.B.C. Publicity)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Information why the report of a Conservative Party sub-committee was given special publicity in the B.B.C. news bulletins on Tuesday, 16th January, including the address from which the report could be obtained; and if he will request the Governors of the B.B.C. to seek opportunities of advertising similarly the publications of the Labour, Liberal, Communist and Common Wealth Parties.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): There was nothing extraordinary about the publicity given to this pamphlet. The B.B.C. find that during 1944 a number of pamphlets published by the Labour, Liberal and Common Wealth Parties received notice in this way.

Mr. Gallacher: Can the Minister tell us why the Communist Party is left out?

Mr. Bracken: I am afraid it is because my hon. Friend is not on comradely terms with the B.B.C.

Mr. Shinwell: Would the Minister define what is meant by "not on comradely terms"? Would he explain what that really means?

Mr. Driberg: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the case of these other parties, the publicity which was given was as thorough? Were the parties' addresses included, and the prices of pamphlets, and so on?

Mr. Bracken: I have not looked into the details of this matter, but I am quite certain that the B.B.C. holds the balance fairly between all parties.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that a great many people believe that the B.B.C. is far too biased to the Left?

Mr. Shinwell: Can I have an answer to my question?

Mr. Bracken: One of the great virtues of the B.B.C. is that extremists on both sides of the House dislike it so much.

Mr. McGovern: Is the Minister aware that the I.L.P. has been left out and that that evidently shows some bias against the I.L.P.?

Mr. Bracken: I must draw the attention of the Governors of the B.B.C. to the fact that they have overlooked that important Fourth Party.

Russian Operations (German Propaganda)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Minister of Information if, in view of the obvious value to the Nazi cause of the British Press and B.B.C. continuing to give prominence to the German version of the news about the Russian advance, he will issue daily informed and confidential advice to the Press and B.B.C. stating the facts accurately and thus placing the German propaganda in its proper light.

Mr. Bracken: The Ministry of Information have no news about the current progress of Russian operations which is not simultaneously available to the British Press and B.B.C. through their own resources. The Russian official communiqués and Marshal Stalin's Orders of the Day deal only With accomplished facts and they can be relied upon to put in their true perspective all the efforts of German propaganda to anticipate the news.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

War Damaged Houses (Thefts)

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware cases are occurring with increasing frequency of looting in houses when war damage repair contractors and workers are engaged by the local authorities to carry out war damage repairs and that no personal responsibility exists between the owner or tenants of the houses and the repairers concerned; and whether the local authority or the contractor will be compelled to make good such loss.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Where repairs are carried out by the local authority the latter can be held responsible by the householder for any loss due to negligence, in the same way as a private contractor. The question appears to suggest that larceny is being committed by repair workers on a large and growing scale. The facts are that nowhere has sufficient evidence been produced to enable the police to prosecute in any single case. I do think that in fairness to those concerned my hon. and gallant Friend should have made of his facts before making allegations of wholesale dishonesty against this body of building trade operatives all parts of the United Kingdom

Repairs (Licensing Limit)

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: asked the Minister of Works the present position where, through enemy action, immediate first-aid repairs are urgently required to be carried out to a building; and whether owners or tenants are authorised to carry out such urgent work themselves, instead of waiting sometimes several weeks for local authorities to take the necessary action.

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Works how far his regulations envisage the prosecution of tenants or occupants of houses who carry out repairs themselves without employing outside labour and without using material other than what they themselves possess.

Mr. Sandys: Householders are, of course, free to carry out their own repairs themselves provided that if the work costs more than £10 in the case of South-East England or £100 in other parts of the country, they obtain a licence. In estimating cost account is taken of all materials used, whether purchased or previously in the possession of the householder. However, the value of the householder's own labour is not reckoned in the cost.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many cases the £10 has already been spent, and that there is often not time, when fresh damage has been caused by enemy action, to fill up forms? Cannot he authorise the spending of £3, £4 or £5 in cases of urgent necessity for immediate repairs of such things as burst pipes, when householders cannot wait for permission?

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir, provision is made for that.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Not in my right hon. Friend's answer.

Mr. Sandys: Provision is given for emergency action in cases such as burst pipes.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Even if the £10 limit has been reached?

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir.

Sir L. Lyle: Is it not a fact that in many cases people have been prosecuted and fined for using material which they had themselves and for giving their own labour? Is not that bureaucracy run mad?

Mr. Sandys: I am looking into this question myself to see that this regulation, which is, basically, absolutely necessary and sound, is not applied with undue rigidity. There will always be isolated cases, in which a regulation is not being sensibly applied, but I believe they are very few. It is, however, particularly difficult to apply this regulation to those who do their own work or carry out their own building, but I am looking specifically into this type of case.

Major Peto: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware of the large amount of property in the London area which would be available as accommodation if there could be some increase in the limit of £10 per annum for repairs; and if he can give any indication when he proposes to amend this limit.

Mr. Sandys: I do not know to what accommodation my hon. and gallant Friend is referring. Any labour needed for such a project could, of course, only be obtained by withdrawing it from other war damage repair work at present being undertaken. In view of the large amount of outstanding repair and maintenance work in the London area, I do not see any prospect of relaxing the licensing limit for some time to come.

Major Peto: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are thousands of people tramping the streets of London for weeks on end while there are plenty of houses in which they could be accommodated? It is a matter of a few pounds.

Mr. Sandys: We have a limited amount of building labour to do an enormous job.

We are trying to spread a very little butter over a very large piece of bread. It is a question of priorities. These are, in the main, allocated with a view to obtaining the maximum number of dwellings for the labour expended.

Major Peto: May I send my right hon. Friend a letter on the subject?

Mr. Sandys: Certainly.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Why not employ German prisoners of war?

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Works why it is that, at a time when no buildings repairs exceeding £10 in value are allowed without a licence in London and the Home Counties when such repairs are most urgently required, building repairs up to £100 in value are allowed without a licence in the rest of the county when they are not nearly so urgent.

Mr. Sandys: The purpose of the reduced licensing limit in London and the Home Counties is, to concentrate, as far as possible, the limited building labour and materials upon bomb damage repairs and other essential work. However, I am aware of the rapidly accumulating arrears of repair and maintenance work in other parts of the country. I should, therefore, be prepared to consider sympathetically any requests for the extension of the £10 licensing limit from local authorities in other areas where particular difficulties are being experienced.

Mr. Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the policy that he is following results in materials and labour which might and should be available in London and some of the Home Counties being used for less essential purposes in other parts of the country?

Mr. Sandys: That just is not so.

Mr. Bellenger: On what basis does the right hon. Gentleman work when he imposes a £10 limit on London and some of the Home Counties and does not extend that to the rest of the country?

Mr. Sandys: London's need has been greater and more pressing and one hesitates to impose these restrictions unless it is absolutely necessary. I think it may very well become necessary in certain other areas and I shall not be at all surprised if I get requests from some of the larger provincial authorities asking that


the lower limit should be extended to them, in order to enable them to use their labour more efficiently.

Sir Alfred Beit: Would not the universal extension of the limit mean the attraction of more building labour from London?

Mr. Sandys: No, Sir.

Sheet Lining Materials

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Minister of Works if he can give an assurance that in allocating supplies of sheet lining materials for temporary houses full consideration will be given to the requirements of permanent prefabricated dwellings and two-stage houses; and what supplies of such materials are likely to be available in the immediate post-war period.

Mr. Sandy's: Yes, Sir. In planning the production of sheet lining materials, full consideration is being given to the requirements of housing of all kinds. Sufficient supplies should be available to meet anticipated requirements in the immediate post-war period.

Mr. Stewart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the trade the fear is that the bulk of the material is being used for temporary purposes, when vast quantities will be needed for permanent houses?

Mr. Sandys: I think my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. In planning the production requirements for these types of materials, we have taken into account the permanent housing programme just as much as the temporary housing programme. I am advised that there is not likely to be any acute shortage of sheeting materials for the post-war programme.

Prefabricated Houses

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Minister of Works what offer has been made by the Swedish Government to this country in relation to prefabricated houses; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Sandys: I am exploring the possibility of obtaining permanent, prefabricated timber houses from Sweden. Certain discussions on this subject have taken place with Swedish representatives. Meanwhile, I should prefer not to make any detailed statement on the subject.

Miss Rathbone: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered getting from Sweden prefabricated open air shelters in order to extend accommodation in existing houses in London?

Mr. Sandys: Perhaps the hon. Lady will let me have particulars of what she has in mind.

Mr. Loftus: Has my right hon. Friend sent a mission to Sweden to investigate the question and publish a report on their return and, if not, will he consider doing so?

Mr. Sandys: While the discussions are going on I should prefer not to be pressed further on this point.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: asked the Minister of Works how many man-power hours were expended in laying the 9½-inch brick foundations for the prefabricated houses at the L.C.C. estate at Matting-ham, Kent, built by or for his Ministry; why it is considered necessary to put in 14 courses of 9½-inch brickwork with similar foundations to carry a prefabricated coal shed; and if this type of substantial foundation is to be the standard for all similar structures.

Mr. Sandys: The site in question comprises 11 temporary bungalows. The man-hours expended on laying the brick-work for the foundations were 683, an average of 62 for each house. In the case of two houses where the ground falls away below road level, a more than normal amount of brick-work has had to be undertaken.

Mr. Walkden: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the actual foundations in this case, measured in terms of bricks and man-power, are equal to one-fifth of an ordinary permanent brick-built house? Is not that appalling waste?

Mr. Sandys: I cannot on the spur of the moment comment on the hon. Member's mathematical calculations. We are obliged, particularly in London, to accept from local authorities sites which we should reject in other parts of the country. The available space is so limited that we have to put down small numbers of temporary bungalows on blitzed sites, often very uneven. In other parts of the country we should insist on a flatter site capable of accommodating not less than about 50 houses. In the case in question


we had to take a site for only 11 houses. I see no way out of this difficulty in London.

Roofing (Metal Alloys)

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Works whether his Department has given further consideration to the use of light metal alloys for permanent and temporary roofing; and with what result.

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir; the use of light metal alloys for roofing, as well as for many other purposes, is being considered. These investigations are not yet completed.

Foamed Slags

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Works what is the position regarding the production of foamed slags; whether foaming plants are being adjoined to all steel works; and what production and price are being aimed at.

Mr. Sandys: There are at present three foamed slag plants in operation together producing about 125,000 tons per annum. The provision of capacity for a further 500,000 tons a year is under consideration by various steel works. It is hoped that the price can be reduced considerably, but I am not able to quote precise figures.

Mr. Astor: In view of the desirability of saving costs of transport of this important new material, will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that foaming plants and steel works are in each important region in the country?

Mr. Sandys: This is, of course, primarily a matter for the steel works themselves, but that is our desire and intention. I must point out, however, that not all steel works are suited for this process.

INTERNATIONAL, ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL AGREEMENTS

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the headway made on currency and proposals for an international investment bank at the Bretton Woods Conference, it is proposed to prepare the way for other international agreements on problems of trade, commodities and full employment.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): These matters are being carefully explored.

Mr. Shinwell: What does my right hon. Friend mean by exploration? Will he say specifically whether, in fact, negotiations are proceeding with the United States on commercial and trade matters?

Mr. Attlee: The matters are being discussed in great detail.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Iron and Steel Disposals, Limited

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Minister of Supply what is the relationship between his Ministry and Iron and Steel Disposals, Limited; and what proportion of the share capital of this company is owned by the Government.

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): Iron and Steel Disposals, Limited, is a non-profit making company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1929, with a nominal share capital of £1,000, none of which is owned by the Ministry. It operates however on instructions from the Ministry. It is financed from public funds and the assets of the Company will, on winding up, be handed over to the Ministry.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Minister of Supply what is the value of surplus iron and steel disposed of by Iron and Steel Disposals, Limited, since it was set up; and what is the value of similar material disposed of through other agencies during the same period.

Sir A. Duncan: The value of the surplus iron and steel disposed of since July, 1943, by Iron and Steel Disposals, Limited, is £1,312,000. The value of that disposed of through other channels during this period is not readily available.

Mr. Douglas: Will the accounts of the company be open to investigation by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

Sir A. Duncan: I should require notice of that Question; they are open to the Ministry of Supply.

Requisitioned Premises (Release)

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Supply for what purpose the privately-owned stores situated at a place, of which he has been informed, were requisitioned; to what use they are now put; and whether it is intended to release them for trading purposes at an early date.

Sir A. Duncan: The premises referred to were requisitioned and are being used for the storage, pending disposal, of surplus Service clothing and textiles. I cannot say how soon it may be possible to release them.

Mr. Kirby: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this place has been very heavily bombed and that the people engaged in the trade are very anxious to rehabilitate themselves again?

Sir A. Duncan: I am very conscious of that.

Mr. Kirby: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter again?

Sir A. Duncan: I have looked into it, and I am not in a position now to say when we may be able to give up the premises.

Tank Board

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Supply whether there has been any change in the membership of the Tank Board since he last gave the names to the House.

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir. The Chairman of the Tank Board is now Mr. C. D. Gibb, who is also executive head of the Armoured Fighting Vehicles Division. Mr. Gibb has succeeded Commander Micklem who, as has already been announced, was released at the end of last year to return to Messrs. Vickers-Armstrongs Limited. The Director-General of Artillery has been appointed to the Board and certain other changes have followed upon internal changes in the War Office and the Ministry of Supply. I am circulating particulars of the present membership in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Keeling: In future will my right hon. Friend make changes without being asked?

Sir Herbert Williams: Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether the strength of a Division is greater than the strength of the people who have served on the Tank Board?

Sir A. Duncan: I do not follow my hon. Friend's question.

Sir H. Williams: Are there not hundreds of people who have served on it since it originally started? How many chairmen have there been?

Sir A. Duncan: Certainly not hundreds.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is not the Tank Board as obsolescent as the tanks which have been designed by it?

Sir A. Duncan: No, Sir.

Following are the particulars:

Chairman of the Board.

Mr. C. D. Gibb, C.B.E., M.E., M.I.Mech.E., etc.(1) (Director - General, Armoured Fighting Vehicles Division, Ministry of Supply).

War Office Members.

Lieut.-General Sir Ronald M. Weeks, K.C.B., C.B.E., D.S.O., M.C., T. D. (Deputy Chief of the Imperial General Staff).

Major-General V. Evelegh, C.B., D.S.O., O.B.E.(2) (Assistant Chief of the Imperial General Staff (W)).

Major-General R. Briggs, C.B., D.S.O. (Director, Royal Armoured Corps).

Major-General E. B. Rowcroft, C.B., C.B.E., M.I. Mech. E., M.I.E.E. (Director of Mechanical Engineering).

Ministry of Supply Members.

Sir Graham Cunningham (Controller-General of Munitions Production).

Major-General E. M. C. Clarke, C.B., C.B.E.(3) (Director-General of Artillery).

Major-General C. A. L. Dunphie, C.B.E., D.S.O.(4) (Deputy Director-General, Armoured Fighting Vehicles).

U.S.A. Liaison.

Colonel G. A. Green.

Footnotes:

(1) Vice - Commander E. R. Micklem, C.B.E., R.N (Rtd.).
(2) On appointment vice Major-General Evetts, C.B., C.B.E., M.C.
(3) Additional appointment.
(4) Lately Deputy Director Royal Armoured Corps, War Office: on appointment to his present position with the Ministry of Supply and assumption of Chairmanship of the Board by Mr. Gibb.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Pig Slaughtering Licences (Caterers)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that the refusal to grant a pig slaughtering licence to caterers unless they promise not to sell the meat in their establishments is causing acute dissatisfaction to caterers in country districts; and whether he will reconsider this policy in the interests of travellers in rural England.

The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): I have not heard of the acute dissatisfaction to which my hon. Friend refers. The undertaking that caterers will not sell this pig meat in their establishments has been required since the scheme was brought into operation in 1940.

Oranges (Wastage)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Food what is the value, delivered at British ports, of the recent arrivals of oranges; what percentage was unfit for human consumption; what is the cost to the taxpayer of this wastage; and whether any disciplinary action is being taken against those responsible for this waste.

Colonel Llewellin: In regard to the first two parts of the Question, I am having the information prepared on the assumption that figures for the period 1st to 10th February, which is typical of recent importations, will be satisfactory to my hon. Friend; in regard to the third part, no charge falls on the taxpayer; in regard to the fourth part, the answer is "No, Sir."

Sir W. Smithers: In view of reports of waste from all over the country, is not this proof of the futility of trying to control retail distribution from Whitehall?

Colonel Llewellin: I do not think that is so at all.

Mr. Shinwell: Who is responsible for the waste and where did the oranges come from? Did some of them come from Spain?

Colonel Llewellin: If anyone is responsible for the waste I am, because I know perfectly well that, with present shipping conditions, if we bring in any oranges at all there will be a considerable wastage, and of course there is less wastage from nearer sources of supply. Therefore there is less wastage in oranges brought from Spain.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Smuggling Offences

Mr. Bowles: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why, where a naval rating offends against the customs duty on imports of, for instance, stockings, which he was bringing home as a present for his near relatives, and he is punished by having the stockings confiscated, he is also punished by his commanding officer with loss of leave.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The law provides that goods which any person attempts to smuggle shall be forfeited. The offender is also liable to prosecution and, on conviction, to the prescribed penalties.

Naval offenders are not of course exempt from prosecution in the civil courts, but in practice they are dealt with by the naval authorities under the Naval Discipline Act. Apart from this they are in the same position as civilians.

Mr. Bowles: May I ask my right hon. Friend the same question that I put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week? Here is a naval rating who has been away for 2½ years and saved £8 to buy some stockings for his close female relatives, and he can be punished by two Government Departments. Surely one punishment is enough. Will not my right hon. Friend exercise that quality of mercy for which he is well known?

Mr. Alexander: I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained the position as regards the forfeiture of goods by a naval rating who commits an offence against the law. He is not proceeded against by the civil authorities, but is dealt with in a disciplinary way by the naval authorities, and I should have thought that, in view of the fact that he might be liable to heavy fines and imprisonment under the civil law, he has not been very harshly dealt with. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, and would like me to look into it, I will.

Mr. Bowles: I have a case in mind, but, in view of the fact that the civil authorities, namely, the Treasury, took what proceedings they thought necessary and confiscated the stockings, may I ask my right hon. Friend, as head of the Admiralty, to waive the extra punishment which this man has had to undergo?

Mr. Alexander: I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept the view that you cannot judge a general issue upon a particular case. If we are weak in dealing with an offence against the law, we may find that it becomes widespread, and unless some action is taken in support of the law, quite apart from mere forfeiture of a pair of stockings, we may get a serious deterioration. I would not like to make any commitment to my hon. Friend on the general principle now.

Mr. John Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman express to the Chancellor of the Exchequer his displeasure at this mean and tiresome tax being imposed?

Mr. Alexander: No, Sir.

Pacific Fleet Operations (Information)

Sir A. Beit: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has arranged for certain naval officers to proceed to the U.S.A. and Australia to supply news of British Fleet operations in the Pacific; how many such officers are involved; and how many of their number have qualifications as journalists.

Mr. Alexander: Thirteen officers, five with journalistic qualifications, have been sent to the U.S.A. and the Pacific to assist the Press of the Commonwealth and the U.S.A. in obtaining and transmitting information on the activities of the British Pacific Fleet or to provide liaison with the U.S. Navy Department. The question of sending further staff is under consideration.

Enrolment Forms

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will cause enrolment forms for the Navy to be limited to a man's date and place of birth, to prevent illegitimacy leaking out through unnecessary details of parentage.

Mr. Alexander: Besides date and place of birth, it is necessary that the nationality of the recruit's parents should be recorded. No other information concerning a man's parents is recorded in his Service documents and illegitimacy could not be deduced or suspected from the entries on his engagement or attestation form.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Why should the names of the parents be given as they are not given in other forms required by the authorities.

Mr. Alexander: From the point of view of the Service it is essential that we should know what the nationality of the person is.

Admiralty Offices, Bath (Staffing)

Mrs. Tate: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that civil servants employed at the Admiralty offices, Bath, still complain that they have to knit, read or sit and do nothing because the offices are so overstaffed and the work so ill-organised; and what steps he is taking to remedy this.

Mr. Alexander: No, Sir, but if the hon. Lady will give me particulars of any cases of under employment which have come to her notice I shall be glad to investigate them.

Mrs. Tate: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a great many cases which I could give him, but in every case I have given up to date there has been considerable victimisation of the writers of the letters, and that makes it exceedingly difficult to give cases?

Mr. Alexander: I must say that it is impossible, at Question Time, to answer general charges of that character. There are very large numbers of civil servants in this particular place who have done fine and loyal work, many of whom resent the reflections made by way of a general charge, without particular cases being brought.

Mrs. Tate: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am as well aware as anyone that large numbers of these civil servants are working long hours and exceedingly hard, but that there is a grave maldistribution of work and very obsolete equipment in the filing department?

Mr. Alexander: I do not know what specially moves my hon. Friend, but my experience is that where a large number of people are directed to certain work, you will always find a few people who will desire to make specific complaints in order that they may if possible be removed from the Department.

LIBERATED TERRITORIES (SUPPLIES AND TRANSPORT)

Mr. Law: I am glad of an opportunity of making a statement to the House on the economic and supply position in the liberated countries of North-Western Europe.

Sir Richard Acland: On a point of Order. May I ask under what procedure we are getting this statement? It was evident at Question Time that the facts are highly controversial, and if this is an answer to a Question Members will not have the right to put their views. Is this to be followed by a Debate?

Mr. Speaker: A Question has been asked and the Minister is perfectly entitled to answer it. When that Question was answered earlier several hon. Members wanted to put supplementaries, and they were then asked to await a statement by the Government which would be made after Questions.

Mr. Law: First of all, I will give the House as faithful a picture as I can of conditions in those countries, according to the best information in the possession of the Government. Then I will give some account of the procedures which have been adopted for dealing with these conditions. And finally, if the House will bear with me for so long, I will explain how we are seeking to solve the very formidable problems with which we and our Allies are faced.
The House will understand that conditions vary very greatly not only as between country and country but also as between different areas in the same country. A shattered bridge, for example, may isolate completely a district, and there will be conditions of acute hardship in that district. Lack of transport creates almost insoluble difficulties in particular regions: again there is inevitably very great hardship. That does not mean, however, that there is a serious overall shortage of food, or that the problem would be solved, or even eased, merely by pumping quantities of foodstuffs into ports which are already strained to capacity.
France is producing as much foodstuffs as she did during the enemy occupation, and great quantities of food formerly taken by the German army are now available to the French people. The principal difficulty in France, therefore, is one of distribution and, in the main, of transport.
In Belgium local production, together with S.H.A.E.F.'s imports, which are rapidly being increased as the produce of last harvest becomes exhausted, would be sufficient, in our view, with proper distribution, to attain the present target of 2,000 calories per head per day which has been set. But I cannot conceal from the House that, in our view, the collection and distribution of foodstuffs in Belgium have not been satisfactorily organised.
In the liberated areas of Holland our difficulties have inevitably been increased by the fact that they are still the scene of active military operations, I am glad to say that increased supplies are coming in, and that the situation is rapidly improving. But I would be misleading the House if I did not point out that, so far as Holland is concerned, the most formidable problem will arise only when the

areas at present in the occupation of the enemy have been liberated.
I have tried to give the House an objective picture of the conditions as they exist to-day. Now let me turn to the procedures which have been developed to deal with those conditions. First of all, let me say that there is a good deal of misunderstanding about the role which U.N.R.R.A. can play in these matters. U.N.R.R.A. has been criticised in a way which suggests that it has responsibilities for supplying France, say, or Belgium which it has been unable to discharge. That criticism is entirely unjust. By the terms of its constitution U.N.R.R.A. cannot intervene in any country unless it is asked to do so by the Government concerned. Both the French Provisional Government and the Belgian Government have preferred to take on this responsibility for themselves, in so far as it has not been, of necessity, a military responsibility. That does not mean that other governments—who are unable to finance the relief of their civil populations—will not wish to hand over this responsibility to U.N.R.R.A., or that U.N.R.R.A. will not have work to do that will tax its capacity to the utmost.
I have seen it stated that this problem of the needs of liberated Europe has come suddenly upon the Government with a shock of surprise. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was in 1941 that His Majesty's Government took the initiative in summoning a conference at St. James's Palace to consider these very problems. And for two years past the Anglo-American authorities have been working out concrete plans which have become increasingly effective. It was the essence of these plans that there should be two periods—a military period, when the areas liberated would still be in the immediate war zone, and a civilian period when the fighting had ceased, or at least had passed out of the area concerned. It was accepted—and I do not think that it can be disputed—that during the first period the import of supplies for the civilian populations could only be carried out successfully by the military authorities.
Of course there are limits to what our armies can do. The first objective of an army is to wage war. The energies of the Allied armies in the field of supplies have been inevitably confined, therefore, to


first-aid. Our armies have been concerned with the importation of such essentials as food, medical supplies, soap, clothing and fuel, and transport, agricultural supplies and first-aid repairs for public utilities in so far as they could be made available. Even so far as food was concerned, there had to be a limitation and the target was fixed, as I have stated, at 2,000 calories per head per day from all sources. And it was decided that internal distribution was to be the responsibility of the national Governments and authorities concerned to the maximum extent possible. I should add that all these military arrangements have been on a combined basis, regardless of whether operations have been carried out by British, American or Canadian troops.
The long-term task of rehabilitating the national economy, and of distributing food in excess of the standard set for the military period, belongs, however, to the second stage which I have described—to the civilian period. This is a problem by no means confined to food supplies: it involves re-starting the whole economic life of the countries concerned. It is at this point that the national Governments themselves must begin to take over. The French Provisional Government and the Belgian Government have already formulated their import programmes for the first six months of this year, and the competent authorities of His Majesty's Government and the United States Government have been instructed to facilitate procurement against these programmes so that supplies will be ready for shipment as shipping can be made available. The Allied Government have, of course, decided for themselves in these programmes what supplies are most essential. Preliminary steps towards the compilation of a Netherlands Government import programme have already been taken, and a Committee representing S.H.A.E.F., the Royal Netherlands Government, His Majesty's Government and the United States Government is already considering a national import programme for the Netherlands.
The civilian import programmes of the French Provisional Government and the Belgian Government were formulated by the turn of last year, but 1945 brought with it a considerable shipping problem. I cannot describe that problem in detail but in broad terms it became apparent that developments in the war situation

had made it extremely difficult to provide shipping to meet this additional demand. With the approval of my colleagues I accordingly visited Washington and over a period of some weeks exchanged views with representatives of the United States Government. I need hardly say that they appreciate as fully as we do the vital importance which from every point of view attaches to this matter of provisioning the liberated Allied countries in the wake of the battle. We were able to allocate at once certain shipping during the first quarter of this year for the carriage of supplies under the French and Belgian programmes within the limits of available port capacity and subject to overriding considerations of military necessity. We also made an analysis of this very complex problem which should prove of considerable value to the Governments concerned in regulating the future allocation of our shipping resources.
I have already indicated that internal transport is one of the main problems that we have to solve. Let me tell the House something of what is being done in this field. Since D Day, 7,500 lorries have been sent to the S.H.A.E.F. area, that is, France, Belgium and liberated Holland, for civil purposes. The reconditioning of ex-Army lorries is already under way. The present production is 100 a week and is expected to rise to 350 a week by the end of March. The ultimate target is 750 a week. We hope to provide more new lorries as well. We are concerting with the French authorities measures to speed up locomotive repairs in France; such assistance will take the form of supplies of raw materials, components, machinery, etc. We have despatched a representative to Paris to discuss wagon repairs and, when his report is received, we shall be in a position to know what materials, components and tools are needed to increase the rate of repairs. He has already made an interim report which is under immediate examination. The French are informing us of their needs for machine tools and hand tools, and we hope to be able to meet the bulk of their requirements. We are making available reserves of material for railway and highway bridges, which were held here against air-raid damage. S.H.A.E.F. are making tugs available to the French so that barges can be more extensively used. Many other similar forms of assistance are contemplated or in hand and, while it


would be idle to hold out hopes that much can be provided from production in this country, the total effect of this is by no means negligible. I would add that we have already sent to the Continent several hundred locomotives for the use of S.H.A.E.F. and are sending a further 200 in the near future. This should relieve the strain on the French railways. It will certainly increase the strain on our own which are already overloaded.
There is also the question of restoring the local administrative systems for the collection and distribution of available supplies. In all the countries so far liberated, these systems have suffered severely, and this is in some cases the main reason why the target standard has not been reached. While we are doing our best to help, this is ultimately a matter for the Governments concerned and I cannot too strongly emphasise the importance of keeping their administrative machinery up to the mark and tackling this problem with the greatest energy.
If I may sum up, I would say this. The economic situation in liberated Europe is certainly grave. Much remains to be done, and it will require the unremitting efforts of the United Kingdom and United States Governments, as well as of the Governments of Liberated Europe, to solve the problems which face us. We have to remember, too, that the requirements of the liberated areas are in direct competition with urgent military demands. Nevertheless, I am confident that the problem will be solved. I am confident that our European Allies understand that we and the United States Government are doing everything in our power, and that they understand that our main objective, theirs as well as ours, must be to bring the war in Europe to an end at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The House is very much indebted to the Minister of State for his very full statement. Naturally, there are a number of points on which the House will desire further elucidation and will perhaps have certain views to express on the matter, which, as the right hon. Gentleman himself realises, is exceedingly important. It is second only to the prosecution of the war and must exercise the mind not only of His Majesty's Government but of all Members

of this House. I therefore rise to ask him this question: whether, after a certain number of questions have been put, he will be able to assure us that there will be an opportunity, in the early future, of having time to discuss this at greater length than would be possible to allow this morning.

Earl Winterton: May I ask if my right hon. Friend will have regard to the request which has been made on this bench, in view of the terrible actualities and potentialities of the situation, and the far graver impression that he has given to-day than that conveyed by the very brusque reply which I received last week? Will he set the earliest possible date for the House to have a Debate on the whole question?

Mr. Law: That is hardly a matter for me.

Mr. Graham White: May I ask whether, in the very impressive summary which my right hon. Friend has given of the situation in Europe, regard has been had to the increased burdens and difficulties which will arise when the 10,000,000 workers and deportees in Germany will require assistance? Bearing in mind the gravity of the situation, which may well have political and even military implications, will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that, if financial arrangements only of a purely technical character are involved, the assistance of U.N.R.R.A. for the delivery of emergency supplies will not be hindered?

Mr. Law: With regard to the first point, about the increasing scope of the problems, that point is certainly being borne in mind. With regard to the second, my hon. Friend will have seen reports in the Press of a meeting of the European Committee of U.N.R.R.A. at which, as I understand it, this point was raised. I hope that no financial considerations should stand in the way of U.N.R.R.A. making such emergency contributions as it can.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's answer to me, perhaps I might now put my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will he give consideration to my request for the House to be able to discuss this matter at greater length than we can do at Question Time?

Mr. Attlee: I was about to rise to reply to the point put by the right hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord. I think the House will want to have the opportunity of discussing this matter. They will want a little time before that, for this is a long and carefully balanced statement, and I think some time will be needed. I will take an opportunity of consulting as to what and when would be the most convenient occasion for a Debate.

Mr. Shinwell: There is a point arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's very well-considered statement. It seems to indicate that the responsibility largely rests on the civil administration in France and Belgium, but it seems also to indicate that that administration was not perhaps so well tightened or well organised as it might be. If that is the case, I wish to ask whether, in any way, the Anglo-American Governments are associated with the civil administration in France and Belgium, probably with their consent in order to arrange more efficiently the organisation for the purposes indicated.

Mr. Law: I think perhaps that I did not make myself clear in my original statement. I did say in that statement that we were not satisfied with the efforts that have been made up to now by the Belgian authorities in Belgium, but I hope that will be rectified. So far as the French Government are concerned, I think I should in fairness say that they have done what I think is a most remarkable job already in re-equipping their railways and making the best use of whatever materials they have.

Mr. Shinwell: Are the British and American Governments associated with them?

Mr. Law: Only, as I have said, in giving them such counsel as we think necessary.

Mr. Speaker: I would suggest that if we Debate the matter now, when there is to be an opportunity later of discussing it, it will really not get us anywhere, and I do not think any useful purpose is served by going on now to a Debate by question and answer.

BILLS PRESENTED

FAMILY ALLOWANCES BILL

"to provide for the payment of family allowances;" presented by Sir W. Jowitt, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir A. Sinclair, Mr. Butler and Mr. Ernest Brown; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 26.]

INCOME TAX BILL

"to amend the law relating to income tax in certain respects;" presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Attorney-General and Mr. Peake; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 27.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Attlee.]

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading, read.

12.22 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Last year, the House of Commons spent 12 days on the English Planning Bill. The Bill which I now bring before the House, is the Scottish counterpart of the English Act, adapted to meet Scottish law, history and conditions of land tenure. The general lay-out and provisions of our Bill are the same as those in the English Act. There are, however, one or two differences to which I propose to refer in a moment. When, in July, 1943, I moved the Second Reading of the Interim Development Bill, I took occasion to review the history of Planning Acts in Scotland. Previous Acts were all permissive. Local authorities were not under any obligation to prepare schemes. As a result, only seven out of 57 planning authorities had schemes covering their areas, and only about one-ninth of the area of Scotland was subject to planning

resolutions. But, as I then indicated, we were endeavouring, by voluntary co-operation between the authorities, to co-ordinate planning, not only as to the use of land in their regions but as to the green belts, water supplies, hospitals, and, in some instances, houses. We have got 18 local planning authorities on the West of Scotland Committee, planning the Clyde Valley arrangements; 17 authorities on the Central and South-Eastern Scotland Committee, and we have another group now, with the counties of Angus and Kinross, part of the county of Perth, and the burghs of Dundee, Perth and Arbroath. In totality, 38 out of 57 of our planning authorities are now carrying out planning work through regional advisory committees formed on a voluntary basis.
There is, I think, general agreement that we must have good planning. We cannot afford any more of that irresponsible and haphazard development which has spoiled so many of our towns and indeed, parts of our countryside too. Planning indeed is a vital necessity. Somebody must decide whether or not, for example, a milk farm here or a milk farm there, should be taken for housing or for factories. Evidences of haphazard, inconsiderate and indeed, foolish planning in the past are, alas, in abundance all around us in nearly every city and town in our land.
If I may, I will give one or two examples. Take, for example, the burgh of Kilmarnock. A new by-pass road was constructed to take traffic away from the burgh, but before the road was completed, it had already been built up with new houses, and accordingly ceased to perform the function of a by-pass road. In Salsburgh, Lanarkshire, a trunk road was constructed to by-pass the existing village. The local authority then built new houses on the other side of the road from the village, and away from the shops, schools, etc., thus making it necessary for children to cross the trunk road, and run the risk of being knocked down by fast-moving traffic. At Coat-bridge, there are actually eight or nine railway stations in the burgh. There are two railway lines running North and South and two running East and West with innumerable routes and sidings. The whole town is criss-crossed by railways, and housing, industry and railways are all inextricably mixed up together.
I could also give an example from the city of Edinburgh. It has a very busy shopping centre in Earl Grey Street. This forms a very bad bottle-neck; it is invariably crowded with road traffic and pedestrians at busy hours. I gave instances in this House during the passage of the recent Water Bill showing where parallel mains had been laid along the same road. For example, in Lanarkshire, the town councils of Motherwell and Wishaw, and the Airdrie and Coatbridge water board, each laid down parallel lines along the road from Symington to Carluke, for a distance of 14 miles. The Hamilton town council and the Lanarkshire county council have each laid down mains along the same route from Strathaven to Hamilton for seven miles. There are other instances which are within the knowledge of other hon. Members. There are actually cases where trunk mains are carried through villages without giving off supplies to those villages.
The present Bill deals chiefly with the special problems of the blitzed areas—"blitzed" being German for wardamaged—and with the blighted areas, these being areas where decay, decrepitude and poverty have set their seals.

Mr. Sloan: That applies to the whole of Scotland.

Mr. Johnston: No, not the whole of Scotland. The Bill also confers upon local planning authorities, for the first time, power to carry out positive planning, and in certain cases enables the local authorities to do the work themselves. The Bill also provides for the acquisition and development of derelict or unused land. The Bill is a formidable and complex Measure, but that is because the problems with which it deals are, themselves, formidable and complex. It has four main objects. The first is, to enable local planning authorities to acquire, by a simplified and expeditious procedure, land both in war-damaged and blighted areas, together with the land needed for the "overspill" of population and industry from those areas. [Interruption.] I tried to find another word to cover that. Obviously, if a local authority is going to develop a war-damaged area, it can only do so by providing accommodation for persons outside the area in which they previously lived.

Mr. Buchanan: My right hon. Friend should not use fancy words, and his Bill would look better.

Mr. Johnston: I will do my best to explain a very difficult and complex method of procedure, and I am sure I shall have the support of hon. Members. Secondly, the Bill provides assistance from the Exchequer to the local planning authorities of these war-damaged areas. Thirdly, it regulates the compensation payable for land acquired for public services within the next five years. Fourthly, it enables local planning authorities to engage in developing their areas, either by themselves, or by disposing of the land they have acquired to private individuals to develop in accordance with the plans laid down by the local authority. The procedure for acquisition is being expedited and simplified, and I am assured that the saving in time might be in the neighbourhood of three months.
To assist the local planning authorities in the acquisition and clearance of land in war-damaged areas and overspill land, the Bill provides for grants being made to the authorities by the Exchequer. The local authorities will borrow to meet the expenditure which they incur. The Exchequer grants will be equal to the loan charges payable by the authorities for the first two years on the money which they borrow to meet the cost of acquiring and clearing the war-damaged land. The grants will also cover the loan charges payable by the authorities in respect of the acquisition and clearance of overspill land for the first two years, and half of the loan charges which they are liable to pay for the following two years. These grants will not be repayable to the Exchequer. If the local authority can show that it has not been possible to bring any of the war-damaged land into use for any substantial purpose, additional grants may be made, in respect of the loan charges on money borrowed by the authority for the acquisition and clearance of that land, for a further period of eight years, or, in special circumstances, up to 13 years.
These additional grants and these only, will be repayable only to the extent to which the local authority makes a profit out of redevelopment operations. It is difficult to estimate the cost of acquiring and clearing land in the war-damaged areas in Scotland, and the land needed for


overspill purposes, but the amount may be of the order of £1,000,000, and the cost to the Exchequer £100,000. Exchequer grants may also be paid to local planning authorities equal to the loan charges for two years on any moneys borrowed by them to enable them to make contributions to highway authorities towards the cost of acquiring and clearing land for highways in connection with the redevelopment of war-damaged and overspill land.
As hon. Members are aware, the blighted areas, described in the Bill as areas of "bad layout and obsolete development" represent the main planning problem in Scotland. These are the slum and congested areas where the houses are huddled together, where the streets are narrow and dangerous, and where there is an almost complete absence of open space. In Scotland we have some of the worst blighted areas in the whole of Great Britain. There is appalling overcrowding; many of the houses are totally unfit for human habitation; and many more fall deplorably short of modern housing standards, or are too small for family life.

Mr. Sloan: How does this Bill help them?

Mr. Johnston: I am going to try to explain that.

Mr. Sloan: I am only asking a question.

Mr. Johnston: I have said that I will explain before I sit down. I cannot deal with everything at once.

Mr. Sloan: If a Tory on the benches behind the right hon. Gentleman had asked the question, he would have turned round and answered him.

Mr. Johnston: I am saying to the hon. Member, and to any other hon. Member, that I propose to answer that question before I sit down.
The overcrowding survey before the war showed that 34.5 per cent. of the houses in Greenock, 39.4 per cent. of the houses in Motherwell, and 39.7 per cent. of the houses in Clydebank, were overcrowded. The 1931 census showed that in Coatbridge 23 per cent. of the houses had only one room, and about 50 per cent. had only two rooms. In some of these areas the densities are simply astounding. For example, in Glasgow and in some of the other industrial towns, they are as

high as 127 houses, or more than 700 persons per acre. That is in the Tradeston division of Glasgow. I understand that the densities in the large English cities are only about half as high as that. The Bill will give the local planning authorities comprehensive powers—leaving out the question of finance for the moment—for dealing with these conditions. They will be able to apply to the Secretary of State for orders authorising the compulsory purchase of land in these blighted areas, which require to be redeveloped as a whole, and of the necessary land for accommodating the overspill of population and industry from those areas, and for replacing open spaces in these areas.
Briefly, the procedure under the Bill is that the local planning authority make a compulsory purchase order in respect of the land which is to be redeveloped, and submit the order to the Secretary of State. The authority must publish a notice in the Press stating that an order has been submitted to the Secretary of State, naming a place where copies of the order and of the maps accompanying it may be seen, and specifying the time within which objections to the order may be made to the Secretary of State. The authority must also serve notice on persons who appear from the valuation roll to have an interest in any land which will be affected by the order, and on such other persons as the Secretary of State may, on occasion, specify. After considering the order, and any objections thereto, and after holding a hearing or public local inquiry, if this is necessary, the Secretary of State may confirm the compulsory purchase order with or without modifications. These same expeditious powers of entry and vesting as apply in relation to the blitzed areas may also be made available to the local authorities for dealing with the blighted areas.
The Bill does not provide for financial assistance to local planning authorities in respect of the acquisition of land in the blighted areas. It will be some time before the authorities can undertake any large-scale destructive operations in those areas, partly because the pulling-down of houses and other buildings immediately after the war would simply add to the already acute housing problem, and partly because the authorities will be extremely busy building new houses on undeveloped land. The problem of dealing with


blighted areas, however urgent in itself, is not so urgent as the problem of dealing with the smashed or the blitzed areas. There are, I think, three ways in which the local authorities May receive assistance when they come to deal with the problem of their blighted areas. First there is, of course, the housing subsidy. Substantial parts of these blighted areas may be appropriated for the building of new houses, for schools, or community centres, and grants will be earned in respect of these new buildings. As hon. Members will see from Clause 47 of the Bill, local authorities will, in appropriate cases, be able to earn, not only the normal subsidy paid under the Housing Acts, but there is also, it will be observed, a special additional subsidy available to authorities who incur specially heavy expenditure in building houses.

Mr. Stephen: That is the existing law.

Mr. Johnston: That is so. I am trying to explain it. The normal housing subsidy for a five-apartment house is at present £13 per annum for 40 years, and the special additional subsidy may amount to as high as £15 per house extra for the same period. These subsidies, will, of course, be reviewed in clue time, say, within two years, and they will be related to the general level at which building costs settle.
In addition, the local authority with the blighted area, will have an opportunity, at the time of the next revision of the block grant, to put forward any exceptional claims which they may have. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the other day, adjustments in the block grant will certainly be needed in the light of post-war developments, and these should take into account, on the one hand, increases in the over-all cost of services, and, on the other hand, any transfer of liabilities. Negotiations for the revision of the block grant and housing subsidies also will be undertaken in consultation with the local authority. While therefore I have considerable sympathy—

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman indicated that such a revision might take place. His words were "Say, within two years." I know he cannot be regarded as making a

promise, but how much importance are we to attach to that statement? Is it a guess, or is that the Government's intention?

Mr. McNeil: On the same point, would my right hon. Friend tell us what he meant by "where transfer of liabilities takes place" in connection with this Bill?

Mr. Johnston: On the point about the two years I am advised that, after consultation with the local authorities, it is the intention of the Treasury and the Department of Health to revise the subsidies in two years. As for the point about the transfer of liabilities, if it be the case that poor law is transferred from local authority expenditure, that ought to be included in any revision of the block grant arrangement. Therefore, I have considerable sympathy with the apprehensions of many of the local authorities possessing the largest areas of blighted land, that they will not be able, financially, to do very much in the way of clearance and renovation. The fact remains that by these indirect methods of housing, and additional subsidies for housing, there will be, when the time comes for large-scale renovations in our towns, some financial aid, and it will be not inconsiderable. Not only so, but when the time comes for review, in consultation with the local authority associations, of the amounts of housing subsidies generally, and the amount and distribution of the block grant, the position of authorities with large blighted areas can be specially considered.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am not clear about what the right hon. Gentleman is now saying. Is he saying that though the Bill does not confer any financial advantage in blighted areas, that financial advantage can possibly be conferred in other measures taken by the Government?

Mr. Johnston: I would prefer my right hon. Friend to take it as I have put it. Under the existing law there are provisions whereby, if there were any urgent need for the redevelopment of a blighted area, exceptional subsidies, up to £15 per house, I think, could be granted, plus the ordinary housing subsidies. I am saying that when these subsidies come up for revision the whole problem of the blighted areas and the cost of redevelopment will


come up for consultation and consideration in conjunction with the local authorities.

Mr. Sloan: As I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is not now in the state of irritation he was in previously, can he now show me how this Bill is going to relieve the overcrowding he mentioned? I have not been able to grasp it from his remarks.

Mr. Johnston: I will try again, but I repudiate the idea that I had any irritation at all: that is a matter of opinion. On the question whether any additional power is given by the Bill to local authorities in blighted areas—not war-damaged areas—I say the answer is, "Yes." To start with, it affords greater expedition in acquisition. It absolves them from personal notifications and allows them to give block notifications of an intention to acquire. All the local authorities, so far as I know, have come to the conclusion that this more expeditious procedure will save them some three months—I am not pinning myself down to an exact period—in the compulsory acquisition of areas for redevelopment in their blighted territory. That is the first point. The second point is that for the period of two years—I assume that two years is the time when the re-examination of the subsidies will take place—there is already provision in the Housing Acts whereby authorities who have exceptional costs for redevelopment may get those exceptional costs made up to the extent of about £15 per house. Thirdly, I intimated that the Chancellor had announced that when the block grant came up for revision account would be taken of all the necessities of the case.
The third object of the Bill is to regulate the compensation payable in respect of land or property acquired for public purposes. In effect the Bill provides that where land is compulsorily acquired for public purposes under any enactment within a period of five years from November, 1944, the compensation will be assessed by reference to prices current at 31st March, 1939. The general conception is that the land is projected back into a March, 1939, setting, and the effect will be that any changes in the land or buildings since 1939 will be taken into account in fixing the March, 1939, price. For example, if there had been improvements to a property since March, 1939,

they would be taken into account. Owner-occupiers of buildings and agricultural land will be able to qualify for supplementary payments up to a maximum of 30 per cent. over the 1939 value of the buildings or land which are compulsorily acquired from them. The need for this 30 per cent. increase in the case of the owner-occupier is due to the cost of replacement. The owner-occupier must find himself another house in which to live, and the Government, as a result of the compromise last year, fixed upon 30 per cent. as an addition to March, 1939, prices. Again, where improvements have been carried out since March, 1939, to buildings or agricultural land at prices greater than March, 1939, prices the owner is entitled in certain circumstances to a reasonable addition for the cost of these improvements, and should there be any disagreement about the supplementary compensation the dispute goes to arbitration.

Mr. Snadden: In the case of agricultural land which had been in a derelict condition but on which improvements have been effected owing to the war cultivation programme, do I take it that if it is acquired under this Measure all the money expended upon it in order to bring it up to the standard required will be taken into account in assessing the value of it?

Mr. Johnston: I hesitate to give legal interpretations. If my hon. Friend will look at Clause 55 he will see how we estimate the amount. Possibly my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will answer that and any other technical points.
The fourth object of the Bill is to enable local authorities to carry out positive planning, that is, to secure that the land acquired by them is developed and used to the best possible advantage. As already indicated some of the land acquired by the local authorities may be appropriated for existing statutory purposes, schools, for example, but the authorities must have wider powers than are conferred by any existing Acts to carry out in appropriate circumstances whatever works are needed for the proper development of their areas. Broadly speaking, the Bill enables them to carry out such works on land acquired under the Bill provided they get the Secretary of State's consent and provided that


private enterprise fails to do the job or fails to do it sufficiently quickly. Thus a local planning authority might start a new shopping centre by erecting the first shops themselves. Again, they might acquire derelict or waste land and develop it so that it will serve some useful purpose. In the industrial areas of Scotland there are many disused sites, spoil heaps and tracts of waste or flooded land. Not only do these disfigure the landscape and destroy amenities, but the land is often land that could usefully be developed. The Bill will enable the local planning authorities for the first time to tackle the problem.
The Bill further enables the statutory undertakers of railways, gas, electricity and so on to play their part in the work of development and at the same time brings them under closer planning control. Wherever a statutory undertaking is affected by the planning Bill the Secretary of State and the Minister whose Department is responsible for the undertaking will bring the matter before Parliament in the form of an Order, which will be provisional only until it is finally confirmed by Parliament.
I turn now to one or two of the main points of difference between this Bill and the corresponding English Act. These differences have emerged as a result of discussions I have had with Scottish local authorities.
The English Act imposes a general obligation on all local planning authorities, which may be modified by regulations made under the Act, to obtain the consent of the Minister to their own development works, if these works are of a kind for which private developers would have had otherwise to obtain planning consent. The present Scots Bill adopts a slightly different approach. Instead of imposing such a general obligation on the local planning authorities, it merely gives the Secretary of State a reserve power to require them to submit to him for decision any particular developments which raise specially important planning issues. In short, it imposes the minimum control on the local planning authorities in the carrying on of their work. I have the fullest possible confidence in the ability and competence of the Scottish local authorities to plan their areas on the best possible lines, and

I do not at all anticipate that the Secretary of State's powers of intervention will frequently required to be exercised.
May I refer to a comment upon this aspect of the Bill which I have seen in certain Press quarters? It is that the Bill gives the Secretary of State rather frequent powers of interference and intervention in planning business. I recollect, however, that when the Act of 1943 was being promoted, the local authority associations urged strongly that appeals against a decision of the local authority should not go to the sheriff as we had proposed, but should go to the Secretary of State, and an Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for East Renfrew-shire (Major Lloyd) during the Committee stage of the Bill, making the Secretary of State and not the sheriff the appeal authority. The Secretary of State can be challenged in this House: the last court of appeal is this House; and I am assured that local authority associations, with one voice and one accord, do not desire that their planning operations shall be delayed by legal process, or shall be made more costly by legal process, but that appeals should come to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who will certainly build up a considerable experience in these matters. Someone, somebody, or some tribunal, must arbitrate as between a local authority and a dissatisfied citizen in planning matters. I believe the general wish of local authorities in Scotland is, that where appeals are required they should, as a normal rule, go, not to the law courts, but to the planning Minister. I think, myself, that this course will be helpful both to appellants and to respondents.
The English Act also enables the Minister in appropriate cases to direct a local planning authority to dispose of land or property acquired under the Bill to some particular individual on specified terms and conditions. This power was included in the Act largely with the view to the protection of minorities—Church and other. The Scottish Bill recognises that some power of direction may, upon special occasion, be necessary, but as a result of the views which have been expressed by the Scottish local authority associations and my own inclinations, I have preferred to limit the Secretary of State's power to intervene in cases in which representations are made to him that the refusal of a local authority to


dispose of land to a particular person constitutes unfair discrimination against that person or is otherwise oppressive. Where any such representations are made to him, the Secretary of State will arrange for a public local inquiry, so that he may be fully informed of all the facts of the case, and will then decide whether any direction about the disposal of the land should, in fact, be issued.
Another difference between the Bill and the English Act relates to the method of disposal of land acquired under the Bill. Under both the English Act and our Bill the consent of planning Ministers will be necessary to the disposal of land. The English Act, however, specifically provides that local planning authorities may not dispose of the freehold of land or lease land for more than 99 years, unless the Minister is satisfied that the circumstances are exceptional. In Scotland public opinion is very much against the long leasehold system, and we greatly prefer the system of feuing land. There are, of course, instances where the leasehold system is operated in Scotland. I had an instance of it a little over a year ago, when a deputation arrived from the village of Stonehouse, in the county of Lanark, to explain to me that most of the land in their village had been held on long lease. Buildings had been erected under the leasehold system. They reported about 250 of these small cottage owners' leases are due to expire within the next five to seventeen years, and when the leases expire, the properties fall to the land owner. Included in this Stonehouse story is the story of the Hamilton Memorial church manse which had been held on a long lease and was just about to expire. The rent payable under the lease was £4 per annum, and, as a condition of granting a feu now of the property, which presumably had been entirely erected by the tenants themselves, the land proprietors were insisting upon an annual feu duty of £10 plus a capital payment of £600.

Mr. McKinlay: Were they all members of the same kirk?

Mr. Johnston: Perhaps I may finish what I was saying. In this case the owners of the land were trustees who took the view that they must make the best possible bargain in granting a feu of their property, and no doubt legally that was so, but the hardship to the tenants, or the leaseholders, was undesirable. The

tenant of a house in Stonehouse, under a lease of 99 years, which was due to expire, paid an annual rent of £1 1s. 10d., but the owner of the land now wanted to charge him a valuation fee of £2 and an annual feu duty of £6. In another case a tenant who had been charged 8s. 10d. per annum was told that he would now have to pay £10 a year, as a condition of his getting a feu. I think it would be generally agreed among all parties that we are better without this leasehold system in Scotland, and, while the Scottish Bill leaves the local planning authorities free to decide whether, in any particular case, they sell land outright or feu it or lease it, I very much hope that they will not resort to the leasehold system.
I do not claim that this Bill will bring the new Jerusalem to our Scottish towns, but it does four things. First, it vastly increases the expedition with which local authorities may acquire land and property for public purposes, a most desirable achievement; secondly, it provides Exchequer assistance to local authorities in war-damaged areas; thirdly, it regulates for five years the rates of compensation to be paid for compulsorily-acquired property; and, fourthly, it gives power to local authorities, either at their own hands or through the agency of private individuals, to develop their land upon planned lines. For these reasons, I commend this Measure to the House.

1.9 p.m.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: After listening to such an excellent and fair statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland, it may appear ungracious of me to start on a critical note, but I would like to make this point clear. The problem which the Secretary of State is facing in Scotland is quite different from that which the Minister of Town and Country Planning is facing in England. The basis of our trouble in Scotland was not the blitz. In England, unfortunately, there are many widely-blitzed areas which call for special treatment. In Scotland the trouble is the blighted areas. I hoped that when the Secretary of State for Scotland was dealing with this matter, it would be possible for him to produce a purely Scottish Bill, which would not follow slavishly the lines of the English Bill but that changes would be made so as to fit this Bill into the problems which we have to face in Scotland. The right hon.


Gentleman may have had excellent reasons for taking the decision he did take, but I should like very much for him to reply to that point. I think we all feel that, in those matters affecting our particular national questions, we are entitled to our own remedies, and that those remedies would be very much better; all the more so because I think that the changes which have been made on the English Bill have improved this Bill.
I was impressed by the instances which the Secretary of State himself gave, but there are two particular changes to which I should like to draw attention. One was referred to by the Secretary of State, and the other he did not happen to mention. The first arises on that Clause which deals with the disposal, or appropriation by a local planning authority of land held by them for the purposes of Part I of the Bill. The Secretary of State, I think rightly, says, "I am not going to interfere with the local planning authority unless the refusal to disposal of land amounts to unfair discrimination, or is otherwise oppressive." I congratulate the Secretary of State on that change, which I think is a sound one. The other change arises on Clause 1. Here, I may be quite wrong—it is a matter of pure conjecture on my part—but I am inclined to praise my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. It seems to me to be in his style. Clause 1, (7), says:
If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the particulars appearing from the application and the statement are adequate for enabling the expediency of the making of. an order to be properly considered he shall
not only authorise the local authorities to
publish by Gazette and local advertisement a notice
of what he proposes to do, but, under paragraph (b), he shall so far as he can, from the valuation roll, notify any person particularly interested, so that that person is sure to know what is going on. In the Debate on the English Bill a great point was made of the failure to give adequate notice, and I think that is an addition to the Bill for which the Government are entitled to take credit.
When I emphasised the important distinction between blitz damage and that particular damage to which we are accustomed in Scotland, where so many areas have got totally out of repair, and

almost uninhabitable, I did not emphasise one point which seems to make the consideration of compensation in Scotland different from what it is in England. The law for many centuries and until comparatively recent times, has always said that if a man has had the misfortune to have his house damaged by the King's enemies, the damage falls upon whoever is stricken down by the act of the King's enemies. It is only in modern times that the State has said, "We are going to give you recompense for what the King's enemies have done."
I think it is apparent that steps such as the Secretary of State proposed should be taken to deal with property which requires overhauling, and I am entirely in favour of it. But it seems to me that in this Bill the Secretary of State should consider what the Uthwatt Report recommended the State to do, and that was that in all cases where recompense was to be made it should be based on the 1939 values, as opposed to the 1939 prices. That would get over a great many of the difficulties that may arise from the complicated compensation form which is in the Bill as it stands. It may well be that the Secretary of State takes the view that the House has decided the matter in the English Bill, and that we are committed to it—I shall listen with very great interest to what he says on that point—but, if so, it only deepens my regret that this Bill is not an entirely different Bill. There are many people concerned. I know a lot of mining villages, and the Secretary of State probably knows many more than I do, where a small owner may have bought, as a method of investment, a number of small houses. Where these houses are taken, that owner is not going to get anything that will enable him to build such houses again. To me, that is a matter of regret. In the English Bill, my hon. Friends and I exerted all the pressure we could on the Government, to induce them to deal with the case of the owner-occupier and the small shopkeeper and even of the larger shopkeeper, because, in these matters, you must measure all with the same rod. It will be a matter of regret to me if we cannot do something to relate the compensation to the value of the house that is being taken, and I think this would be a better Bill if, following on the Uthwatt Report, which we all read with so much interest, the compensation were based on the values rather than the prices of 1939.
There is one other thing. I hope, on the one hand, that the local planning authorities will not be too meagre in some of their schemes. There are many places which must be rooted out at all costs, but, on the other hand, I hope that the authorities will have an eye to the expense which may well have the effect of putting up the rates to a remarkable extent. In other words, I recommend not grandiose schemes so much as a consideration of all the necessary schemes that are going to make more people able to live in reasonable comfort and in proper surroundings, and rather less consideration to the type of grandiose scheme which one has seen in the past. I wish this Bill well. I do not think it is a perfect Bill, for the reasons I have stated, but I, for one, intend to support the Second Reading.

1.18 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am authorised by those who sit with me on these benches to say that we give general support to this Bill. It is, in our view, a necessary Bill. It is a useful Bill, and the sooner it gets on the Statute Book, with, possibly, some Amendments, the better we shall be pleased. At the same time, I think it would be unfortunate if in Scotland higher hopes were pinned on the results of this Bill than its actual terms justify. In fact, in spite of its somewhat grandiose Title, it is really a very modest Measure. Its English counterpart, which we had before us during the autumn of last year, was, in itself, a modest proposal, as I shall show in a moment. But, for the reason that the hon. and learned Member who preceded me has already pointed out, in Scotland the same provisions constitute a still more modest reform than they do in England, because the English Bill was designed primarily to deal with war damaged areas, and this Bill, which follows along the same lines, follows in the main those provisions. We all know that in Scotland war damaged areas are few and far between, and, as my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, our concern in Scotland is much more with those areas of bad development, or what in common parlance are called slums, which are such a regrettable feature of some of the towns and other parts of Scotland.
My right hon. Friend who moved the Second Reading of this Bill sketched out at the beginning of his speech a number

of muddles, overlaps and troubles in the unplanned condition of Scotland at the present time. I think all of us in the House would go with him in his regret that there were these blots on what should be an ordered system of the lay-out of the land of Scotland, but, when the right hon. Gentleman came to describe the Bill, he did not relate the actual terms of the Bill to that general criticism to which he devoted himself in the early part of his speech. I am not going to deny that there may be in this Bill certain Clauses which may have some influence on the matter to which he was then referring, but I should be glad if the Lord Advocate, if it is he who will reply at the end of the Debate, would be a little more specific in the matter. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend was referring to Clause 10 or to Clauses 30 to 45, but I personally do not find very much in the Bill which, in itself, would remedy the defects to which my right hon. Friend referred.
Let us just see how limited is the scope of this Measure. Town and country planning suggests something fairly comprehensive, but, in fact, as I see it, like its English counterpart, this Bill really only provides for piecemeal planning of local authorities on rather a small scale. So far as financial assistance provided in this Bill is concerned, it only relates to piecemeal planning with regard to these very few areas which have actually suffered war damage or are adjacent to areas which have suffered damage in the course of the war. I am not blaming my right hon. Friend, because it is a larger matter, naturally, than he could have dealt with, but we have no national planning, either in this Bill or in its English counterpart. There is no settlement of the fundamental questions of compensation and betterment. The hon. and learned Member who preceded me spoke of the Uthwatt Report, but there is not only no acceptance by the Government of the particular phrase my hon. and learned Friend referred to, there is no acceptance of the larger principles which were the main feature of the Uthwatt Report. Therefore, instead of having a planning of Scotland, we are thrown back on individual plans by individual local authorities which may involve, to some extent, at any rate, the very conflict between one and another to which my right hon. Friend referred in the earlier part of his speech.
This, of course, is a permissive Bill in the main, but, before these local authorities can utilise the Bill and lay-out their plans to any effective purpose, they want to know a little more of what is going to be the lay-out of Scotland from a national point of view. For instance, are there going to be new national roads? If so, where are these roads going to be? My right hon. Friend gave a most unhappy case of where a great road was planted down between the dwellings of the people and the shops and the schools to which the children had to go. That is just what we want to avoid. Is that going to happen again? If it is not, surely the local authorities, before they start planning their residential areas, ought to know where the national roads are going to be? Again, the Government have come to no decision with regard to the location of industry. It does not seem to me that the local authorities can properly plan their residential schemes until they have more information than they have at the present time with regard to the location of industry, because it is no good their building houses for workpeople to live in if there are no works to which these workpeople are going, and it is no good the local authority planning open spaces in the very areas which will be required for housing the population that may come to some big factory or other works which, in the process of time, the Government may decide it will be necessary to set up in a particular area. Therefore, though I welcome this Bill, and regard it as a necessary and useful Measure, I would like to re-inforce the remarks, made with regard to the English Bill when it came before this House, that the situation requires that the Government shall be up and doing and make some comprehensive national plans, without which the local plans which the local authority will be called upon to make will not be efficient and may even be misguided and misplaced.
A word about the compensation Clauses. We had a number of very strenuous Debates last autumn on the compensation Clauses of the English Bill. I was privileged to be the spokesman of my party in putting forward a proposal which did succeed in breaking the deadlock that appeared at one time to threaten the passage of the Bill in a complete form, and we were parties to a compromise in

the matter of compensation to which reference has already been made. I had hoped that, in the Scottish Bill, where that compromise is repeated, we should be spared a re-opening of that very intricate and debatable issue. I rather gathered from the speech of my hon. and learned Friend that he was not of that opinion, though I think he did say—and I take this in good part from him—that if the Secretary of State said that the matter has been decided, though he might protest, he would bow to that decision. I hope that that will be the case. We do not want a discussion on this matter all over again. The compromise that was reached was a compromise. It was a giving way on both sides on this issue, and if it is to be re-opened on one side it will be re-opened on the other, and that would be unfortunate. Therefore, I hope that the words which fell from the lips of the hon. and learned Gentleman, as I gathered, implied that, if the Secretary of State stood pat on the English Bill, though he might protest, he would fall into line.
There is only one point more that I want to make. This Bill not a great aid to the finances of local authorities in such planning as is carried out under its provisions. The only financial aid that is really given in this Measure is that for war damaged and adjacent areas. In England that is a very important part of the scheme, but in Scotland, as I have already pointed out, it is a very small part. So far as the blighted areas are concerned, this Bill in itself does not confer any financial assistance on local authorities. My right hon. Friend told us that local authorities would get benefit under the existing law and, even if changes were made in the existing law, I gather that he implied that he had Some sort of assurance that all the special difficulties would be taken into account, though what he said did not quite amount to as much as that. That is all very well and it may be very good, but that really has nothing to do with this Bill.
All that this Bill does is to facilitate the local authorities getting on with the job and it may be that, owing to provisions already on the Statute Book and to the good sense of the Treasury in this matter of Scotland, such financial advantages as already are able to accrue will come in under that term to help local


authorities to utilise the proposals of this Bill which expedites procedure. But do not let us lead the public of Scotland up the garden in the matter. This Bill in itself does not provide any financial assistance for local authorities as far as I understand it, except in so far as those particular areas are concerned where war damage has occurred.
I am afraid that it may be said that I have been damning the Bill with faint praise. I have done that, or perhaps the reverse, as I believe the Lord Advocate says I have been praising it with faint damns, because it is necessary that the people of Scotland should know the limit to which this Bill goes. It is, as I said at the beginning, a useful Bill; it is a necessary Bill. I do not think that the local authorities could get on without it, but at the same time it is not a Bill for planning the country of Scotland. It is a Bill for enabling local authorities, without very much guidance from the national Government, to develop their local areas rather more easily than they could have done without it and to develop them as best they can, with the best indication that they can get of the way in which the whole life and industry of Scotland will come into being.

1.36 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I was interested when the Minister introduced his Bill and very interested also in the two speeches that have preceded mine. It is evident that the Bill is nothing like what one might expect from its Title. When I was going through it I wondered whether I would raise with you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether the contents of the Bill were in Order in view of the Title, because as far as town and country planning is concerned there is very little Bill at all. Another point I would like to put in connection with the Bill is the size of it. This is one of the biggest Bills that we have ever had in connection with Scottish affairs since I came to this House, and when I think of the 100 pages of this Bill and the little that the people in Scotland can hope from it, I am appalled. The Secretary of State for Scotland certainly tried to give it some sort of appearance of importance with regard to our immediate and greatest problem in Scotland, that of housing. He told us about the terrible overcrowding in particular towns—in Greenock, Coatbridge and other towns—

and the suggestion was that the Bill was going to provide the local authority with opportunities for dealing with that overcrowding. In spite of what he said afterwards, I think he was a little peeved with the interruptions from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) in this connection. I listened to him very carefully and I do not think that he really made good his statement that he was going to show us how the Bill would really help in dealing with the question of overcrowding.
I am in agreement with the hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me on the fact that the Scottish Bill would have been better if it was not simply the counterpart of the English Bill. We are getting into a very wretched position in this House in that, when an English Bill is introduced, we are practically excluded from consideration of it, and when a Scottish Bill follows we find that all the principles have already been decided in connection with the English Bill. It is practically impossible for us to have the particular Scottish position represented and dealt with in the way it should be dealt with, because we are always told that, the English Bill having settled all these questions of principle, it would not do to depart from them now. I hope that the Lord Advocate will realise that this is not simply a protest that I generally make, because I believe it is very necessary that we in Scotland should get a measure of Home Rule as soon as possible. It is certainly a practice which has grown up in more recent years of making a Scottish Measure comply practically and completely with the English Measure without giving adequate attention to the particular problems that we in Scotland have to face.
If the present Government were to come to a speedier termination than we might suppose possible at present, if some sort of crisis developed, and this Bill did not pass, it would affect Scotland very little, with the exception of one or two districts which have been badly blitzed. The amount of money that is coming from the National Exchequer in connection with the Bill is also so limited that even they would not suffer very much if the Bill were not put upon the Statute Book. And yet never was there a time in our history when there was more need of a real town and country planning Bill and when our


people were so buoyed up with hope that we were going to embark upon great new schemes which would introduce a much more tolerable social order. Never was there a time when there was more expectation and yet the Government are proving themselves quite inadequate to deal with the expectations of the people.
The Secretary of State for Scotland also dealt with some instances of bad planning in connection with roads in the past. The right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) said that he did not just see the point of the Secretary of State dealing with this, because he did not see how this Bill would avoid those things in the future. I take it that what the Secretary of State for Scotland had in mind was that the local authority, with its planning scheme for re-development, would, in respect of roads, not come into conflict with the neighbouring authority, that there would be agreement and that steps would be taken to see that things of this sort could not happen in the future. I think that the fears of the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh are more likely to be realised than the belief of the Secretary of State for Scotland. This is something which I hope will not raise expectations in Scotland. There is really no town and country planning in this Bill at all.
I hope that we are not going to have a very heated controversy over compensation, though possibly there will have to be a certain amount of discussion; but there is one point I should like to put to the Secretary of State. In the past he has enunciated the great importance of seeing that if people were to get compensation for land they should have a good title to that land. I wonder if we could not have a Clause put into this Bill on the lines suggested by the present Minister in his more regenerate days, a Clause that would set up an organisation to insist upon landowners proving their right to the lands they claim to own. A proposal for the examination of titles was raised previously in this Parliament by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), but it did not meet with anything like the same enthusiasm from the Secretary of State for Scotland as he was wont to display in this connection in bygone days. I put it to the Lord Advocate that he might perhaps consult with his right hon. Friend to see whether it would not be possible to

put a little good planning into the Bill by inserting some Clause of this kind.
The problem of Scotland, as I see it, is that there is a need for planning with regard to a great rehousing policy and in connection with that, a plan for a great agricultural and industrial development. Naturally the housing proposals and the industrial and agricultural development would have to go together, and I hope we shall have some indication that something may yet be done. I have a letter which I would like to read from a family of if in a single-apartment house, but I do not wish to take up too much time, as I know my fellow Members for Scotland are anxious to take part in the Debate. What is described in that letter is the sort of thing for which we can get no remedy under present conditions.
The other day I had sent to me a document by three Scottish Members who felt that their fellow Members might be interested to read of a plan they had in mind for the development of Scotland. I daresay all the other Scottish Members also received this document from the hon. Members for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), South Ayrshire (Mr. Sloan) and West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). It was not a very big document—it could be contained in two pages of this Bill—but in those two pages there was much more promise for development in Scotland than in the whole of this bulky Bill. I do hope that the Scottish Members in the Government will face up to the situation. We in Scotland have had a raw deal. Our association with England has not given us the opportunity for the development of housing and of our industries there ought to have been, and I do hope, in view of the urgent need of the present and future, we shall at an early date get a real Bill for planning in Scotland such as will offer some hope to the Scottish people.

1.50 p.m.

Mr. McKinlay: I must say that having read this Bill through once or twice, and without understanding it, I have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments which have fallen from the. lips of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). In his more regenerate days he and I used to agree much more often, but in any case, from what I have been able to gather from the Bill, the Title is all wrong. It


should have been entitled "The Secretary of State for Scotland (Enabling) Bill" because almost every Clause and Sub-section is plastered with "The Secretary of State shall," "the Secretary of State might," and "the Secretary of State may." Having tried to count the number of times the Secretary of State is mentioned, and having lost count and given up, I said to myself, "Seeing the Secretary of State puts his finger into this pie so often there must be something in it." And, like a typical Scot, who has had some local government experience, I delved in to see how much would be in the "'kitty" arising out of this Bill. The only definite thing I could find was that the Treasury were restricted to a payment of £100,000, and that only applies to bomb-damaged areas. If this Bill is designed to put the bomb-damaged areas right I suggest that all the Clauses dealing with anything else ought to be dropped, for reasons which I hope to show.
Part of my constituency runs through one of the badly bomb-damaged areas, and this is how it will operate. I shall refer to Clydebank, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood). With regard to the overspill—I am surprised that a teetotaler like the Secretary of State for Scotland has given a blessing to a word which appears to me to have emanated from a "pub" counter, and in any case we are dealing with humans—from the redevelopment of the bomb-damaged area in Clydebank it will go into the county area. The promoting authority is Clydebank, the receiving authority is the Dumbarton County Council. How will Clydebank ever recover all the expenditure to which they are committed if the rateable value is in another rating area? That system runs right through the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) will be confronted with the same position in his constituency. To get away from the bomb-damaged areas far the moment, Glasgow will be confronted with the same position, with the difference that Clydebank will get same compensation under bomb damage but Glasgow, which has more damaged areas by reason of obsolescence, will get nothing under this Bill.
I suppose my right hon. Friend knows that we have two or three highbrows re-planning the West of Scotland at the

moment. Let me give an illustration of how this will operate. Take the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie, which is obsolete. To redevelop the Camlachie portion of Glasgow will cost the Glasgow ratepayers approximately £5 per square yard. That is a modest estimate. There is nothing in this Bill, but the Secretary of State says, "Under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act there is a special subsidy." For what? He quoted Clause 47—provided the houses "are unfit for human habitation"; but there may be 30 per cent. of the houses which could not be described as unfit. In the redevelopment of an area you may cut out 40 per cent. perfectly habitable houses and more than that and, if I may say so, the subsidy contribution under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act is useless for that purpose
What do the highbrows say who are replanning the West of Scotland? What they have been successful in doing so far is sterilising redevelopment within the ownership of the Corporation, within the City boundary, sterilising redevelopment where 7,000 houses were provided and where, if the scheme ultimately goes on, there will be 47 miles of roads and sewers. And the casual visitor from London who is planning the area says, "We can overspill." To where? Into East Kilbride. Where is that? In Lanarkshire. Glasgow is the promoting authority. We shall fill the densely and obsoletely developed part of Glasgow, and we have to overspill into another authority's area and, after having permitted the Secretary of State to interfere on at least 287 occasions according to this Bill, Glasgow is supposed to provide for the re-development of Glasgow. Worse than that, my right hon. Friend referred to 127 persons per acre. I would not deal in terms of persons per acre at all, I would rather deal with the number of houses per acre. By redeveloping Camlachie—I am suggesting Camlachie because the hon. Member is here—the density would be cut by more than one-half, and, let it be noted, this would cost an average of anything from £3 to £4 or £5 a square yard. One cannot possibly do other than leave considerable portions of that as open spaces from which there is no financial return so far as rateable value is concerned.
I hope this Bill will go to the Scottish Grand Committee. It is asserted that local authorities have said nothing, but I say: "You wait until the Parliamentary committees of the local authorities get their teeth into this." It is an illusion. There is absolutely nothing in it at all, and if the only reason for producing the Bill was that it speeded up the acquisition of land, let me say quite frankly—and no one could ever say that I have any kind words for the owners of land—that I was able in Glasgow to be responsible for the purchase of 3,000 acres of land without any bother at all. The difficulty is not getting the land, for the moment the threat of compulsory purchase is put to the landlord he will cave in. Neither is it a question of giving the local authorities powers to acquire.
There is one thing in this Bill which is a gem, and I must not let it go without taking the opportunity of reminding my right hon. Friend of the position in which we were placed in 1930. Clause 18 (5) gives any person who has been living there the right to claim to go back to the newly developed area. I remember on the Committee stage of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1930, that we were faced one morning, in Westminster Hall, with a rather difficult problem. The Government of the day had a majority, on the Scottish Grand Committee, of two, at the best of times, but on this particular morning my job was to try to find another two Members to give us a majority in resisting an Amendment which was moved by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). I reported faithfully that there was not another person in the building. At that Committee the Secretary of State for Scotland posed this question to the then hon. Member for Dundee, the late Mr. Scrymgeour: "Does my hon. Friend want to give to a publican who has a public house and a dwelling in an area to be cleared of slums, the right to go back into that area, after it has been cleared, and be provided with a public house?" Mr. Scrymgeour replied: "I am not supporting that, but the implication of the Amendment is that that could happen, and in those circumstances I am voting against it." We took a vote and the Government of the day gained a majority of one, This Clause makes provision, if

I read it correctly, for the same thing. People will have the power to demand that they should be reinstalled in the area from which they were removed. Suppose we clean out the dirty spots in the West of Scotland, in which the liquour trade might be involved. Is not this complicating the position of the licensing magistrates, who are supposed to deal with the application for a certificate according to the merits of the case, and not because of anything which is laid down in a Town and Country Planning Act?
I want to give one more illustration as to planning, even under existing conditions. Everybody knows of planners and pamphleteers whose only practical knowledge of housing problems is what they have read in pamphlets. They have never lived near, or been in, a slum, and they lie at night and dream of beautiful green fields and daisies. The recommendations of the planning authority will, without doubt, be accepted by the Secretary of State. They will say with regard to an area lying to the north-west of Glasgow that although it is overlooked by the Kilpatrick hills those hills will be a buffer space. Where are we going to put the population that should have been housed there? They will say: "We are going to build a new town." If I were selfish I would say: "Flood all these people into the county of Dumbartonshire. It is a pretty 'dicky' place for a Labour Member at any time." I want to know whether the Glasgow authority are to be the promoting authority to hand over to the Dumbartonshire County Council the rateable value of something that should go to Glasgow. These are real difficulties. Unless I am "screwy" I suggest, from my reading of the Bill, that this is not a planning Bill at all.
I do not object to the Secretary of State being consulted, but I do not think he should be able to intervene on so many occasions. There are a number of ghosts of Secretaries of State who have been in Edinburgh, and goodness knows how they would fare if they were reinstated. I hope the Government will give Scottish Members an opportunity to do some real planning. The Government have failed to produce a planning Bill. Will they give Scottish Members of Parliament an opportunity to make their contributions, so that Scotsmen here, who are more or less united on everything, can at least make a workable Bill out of this Measure?


The way to do that is to send this Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee, where we can agree to differ among ourselves. If it is taken in Committee of the Whole House we shall have the same experience that we had when the administration of health insurance was taken from Edinburgh and transferred to the new Minister of National Insurance. Scottish opinion will be overwhelmingly defeated by the big battalions who do not know the problem. Do not let the Secretary of State, the Lord Advocate, the Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland, or the people at St. Andrew's House, imagine that local authorities will have nothing to say on this Bill. I make the prophecy that when the local authorities get their teeth into this Measure many Amendments will be put forward. Without being offensive, so far as I can see the only Ministry which has not had a finger in this pie is the Ministry of Works. Many thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for managing to keep them out of this Bill.
If the Government want the local authorities to welcome this Bill with open arms let them extend the functions of the Special Housing Association, and name it "The Special Housing and Planning Association." Then they will be able to say to the local authorities, "The Exchequer will pay for everything." I do not see why that could not be done. I submit that the local authorities will be ham-strung in planning by having to take first-class return fares to Edinburgh two or three times a week. The simplest way would be to alter the articles of the Association. There would soon be a big enough staff to cope with the work, because I see that the experts are making a bee line for it. The simplest way out would be to cut out the interests of the local authorities and transfer the responsibility to the Special Housing Association and rename it "The Special Housing and Planning Association." Let the Exchequer accept 100 per cent. responsibility for the financial arrangements. That is about the only way in which the Government will get this Bill through without a struggle. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not been here to hear me say all these things. I hope he will not think I am making a dead set at his Department, but even my friendship for Ministers will not permit me to remain silent about what is an obvious fraud on

the local authorities of Scotland as regards planning.

2.14 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: If ever there was an argument or case made for Scottish Members of Parliament meeting and discussing matters affecting Scotland before legislation is introduced this Bill provides a splendid example. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) expressed the hope that the Bill will go to the Scottish Grand Committee, where Scotsmen can make something out of it. I am certain that if it goes to that Committee we shall not be able to make anything out of it. We are in an unfortunate position of being subject to effete Sassenachs, who are incapable of dealing with the problems that confront them in England, and, as a consequence, sturdy Scotsmen are bound hand and foot and dragged behind them, as can be seen from the miserable production which we are discussing here to-day. There is no Scotsman in this House who would dare to put obstacles in the way of those who wanted to deal with Scottish problems. If we could get a chance of facing up to the problems confronting us in Scotland, we could deal with them. Instead of that, through this Bill, limits are imposed upon us, a terrible thing for us and for the Scottish people as a whole. There is need for all the land in Scotland being taken over and planned.
What is the idea behind the planning in this Bill? It is to get the maximum number of houses in the minimum area of land. There is no conception here of a new method of planning, with not only houses but playing fields, sports centres, for music, art, drama, centres, and cinemas. If you take the financial Clauses, you can see that the desire is to limit it as far as possible to houses, and to the maximum number of houses. Why should Scotsmen be solemnly discussing a trashy, trivial thing of this description? Clause I begins:
Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is requisite for the purpose of dealing satisfactorily with extensive war damage in the area of a local planning authority.
In England there has been very considerable war damage, and you can see some excuse, although it is only an excuse. Parliament ought to have dealt with this question of planning on a big, broad scale. In England some excuse can be shown


for special legislation for bomb damage, but where is there any excuse for coming in with a Bill for bomb damage in Scotland? Of course, there are a couple of limited areas which have had bombing, but what applies to England is automatically applied to Scotland. The Secretary of State knows—perhaps the Lord Advocate does not, because he has never been in the Socialist movement—that in Scotland a thousand times more damage has been done by the class war, than by World War II. Does this war damage mean class-war damage or is it limited to the world war? We should get a very interesting answer from the Under-Secretary if he were here about the damage caused by the class war. That is the thing that we should be facing up to. There is not a part of Scotland, town, city or rural area, which has not had war damage in this respect.
If we were tackling the business seriously, we should be taking over the whole of the land and utilising it to ensure a complete clean-out of the terrible housing conditions, and some real consideration for the health of the people. We hear of Scottish regiments fighting for their country, but it is not their country when they come back. Someone says, "This is not your land. It is my land." It is a case of "Get off the earth" for all that they care.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): We are really getting rather wide. I have given a good deal of latitude, but we must keep to the Bill itself.

Mr. Gallacher: I am very thankful for your guidance, Sir, but I put a question to the Scottish Secretary. I want to know whether this refers to war damage or to class-war damage.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was trying to convey to the hon. Member that that could not possibly come in under the Bill, and the Under-Secretary or anyone else would not be in Order in answering it. The hon. Member had better leave that part alone.

Mr. Gallacher: The Secretary of State should be more specific when he deals with war damage. He should say which war it refers to. It is in everyone's mind that there is only one war. In my mind there are two going on at present, the

world war and the war that the Secretary of State and I have been participating in for 35 years—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We must not discuss that war, nor the rebellion of 200 years ago. Let us get back to the Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: I think in a case of this kind, which so much affects every town and city, and the whole of the people, there should be some definition of this question of the war. The Secretary of State should see to that before the Bill comes up for further consideration.
I want to draw attention to a situation that ought to be considered by every Scottish Member. Clause 31 starts off:
Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the construction or improvement of a road is needed.
Sub-section (2) says:
Where the Minister of War Transport is satisfied that the construction or improvement of a road is needed.
How is it that we tolerate anything of that kind? How is it possible to get efficiency when you have such a situation? The Secretary of State, with a huge administration, is capable of attending to all the needs of Scotland. Why should we drag in the Minister of War Transport from London? Is it not clear that, if we were dealing with Scotland from the point of view of the best interests of its people, we should deal with it in an entirely different manner? Clause 4 begins:
Where the purchase of any of the land as to which an order under Section one of this Act is in force appears to the Minister of Works and the Secretary of State.
That is only playing with the Scottish problem. There are so many problems affecting Scotland arising out of the war. You have had the importance of Rosyth demonstrated arising out of the war, and the importance of the road bridge across the Forth arising out of the war. You have had innumerable associated problems. You cannot take one away from the various others. You have to take them all as pieces in one great pattern and work it out. I wish I could feel that it was possible to throw the Bill out, and for Scottish Members to gather together to work out the lines on which legislation should be prepared which would not only repair and replace the bombed areas but would cover the needs of the whole country in connection with housing and the health of the people.


That is the job that Scottish Members have to do, to see that the people get every opportunity for developing to the fullest stature of manhood and womanhood with the fullest and freest life and the highest culture. This Bill is not going to help with that responsible task. I hope that Scottish Members will realise the futility of this sort of thing, and that the Secretary of State will see the need for bringing Scottish Members together periodically, to discuss Scottish problems and prepare the way for effective Scottish legislation.

2.26 p.m.

Mr. Ross Taylor: Perhaps I ought to begin with an apology for intruding in a Debate on a purely Scottish Measure, but I can at least claim the qualification of being a Scot and not an effete Sassenach. I want to mention a matter of detail. I have risen at the request of those interested to ask the Secretary of State if, at a later stage, he will consider according to non-statutory gas undertakers either in whole or part the protection and reliefs which the Bill accords to statutory undertakers. In Scotland gas is supplied by some 65 local authorities and 135 companies, and of the companies only four are statutory. The non-statutory companies, although very numerous, are small and on the passing of the Gas Undertakings Act, 1934, it was recognised that it would be impossible to compel them to acquire statutory status, and Section 35 of the Act provides that the provisions requiring English companies supplying more than 30,000,000 cubic feet a year to become statutory should not apply in Scotland. That was one recognition of the somewhat peculiar position of these statutory undertakings. We had a further recognition in the Housing (Scotland) Acts. Section 64 of the Act of 1935, which amended the Act of 1925, confers limited exemption from compulsory purchase of their land both on statutory and non-statutory undertakings, and Section 84 also provides protection for the apparatus of both classes of undertaking.
The fact that special recognition has been accorded to these non-statutory companies is mainly due to the fact that the interests of consumers is amply safeguarded by Sections 20 to 26 of the Burghs (Gas Supply) Scotland Act, 1826, which confers upon local authorities the

right compulsorily to acquire gas companies in their areas if the gas supply is unsatisfactory. The fact that none of these small undertakings has ever, as far as I know, been acquired by a local authority shows pretty clearly that they have carried out their work satisfactorily, and earned the gratitude of the communities that they serve. They have, therefore, earned the right to be treated in the same way as statutory undertakings. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether for these reasons the concessions, protections and reliefs accorded to statutory undertakings can be extended to those which are non-statutory.

2.30 p.m.

Mr. Hubbard: I rise with mixed feelings to speak on this Bill. We all agree that the time is opportune to pass a Bill to deal with the blitzed areas. We agree also that now is the time when local authorities ought to know what they are able to do in regard to planning. So far as this Bill deals with the blitzed areas, however, sufficient thought has not, in my opinion, been given to methods of dealing with the financial commitments over the period suggested in the Secretary of State's speech. So far as the blighted areas are concerned, the Bill gives the local authorities power to plan. That is essential. It also gives them powers to requisition land for the purpose of planning. It does, however, not go so far as to tell the local authorities how they are to meet their commitments. There are far too many "ifs" and "ands" in this Bill for it to be a good Bill on planning. A real planning Bill should be almost devoid of "ifs" and "ands," Already the local authorities in Scotland have had to meet severe increases in their rates. I have some statistics showing that since 1936 some of the local authorities have had increases in rates as high as 63 per cent., but almost every large or small burgh has had to meet increases in rates. The Minister stated that where there is any financial outlay in dealing with blighted areas there are some means by which local authorities can recover some of the money they have laid out. One of them is by way of housing subsidies. I want to suggest that the effect of housing subsidies is not felt immediately by local authorities. It is felt only over a long period of years, and that is a poor substitute for financial assistance in planning.
Although this Bill may pass, it will be of little or no use unless the local authorities and the area planning committees give effect to it: We are dependent on the planning committees to carry the Bill into effect. I can see endless difficulties facing planning committees in deciding how far they can go with their plans in the absence of any definite information from the Government of what the national plans are. For instance, they are expected to plan trunk roads, but it is important that planning committees should know where those roads are to lead. Unless the Government indicate what their plans are in regard, for instance, to the Forth Bridge, how can they expect planning committees in the Forth area to go ahead with planning? The right hon. Gentleman ought to bring pressure to bear on his colleagues in the Government to declare what their plans are nationally on such questions as the Forth Bridge. It is essential that local planning committees or area planning committees should know that before they can go ahead and make their plans, in which, after all, the local authorities are expected to meet the initial costs. The same applies to the future of industry. In the Forth area some good work has been done during the war particularly in regard to shipbuilding. Nobody knows, however, what the intentions of the Government are for the future of that industry on the Forth.
Again, how can regional planning committees go ahead with planning until they have some information from the Government of their intentions on such subjects? Their intentions ought to have been announced long ago. Several attempts have been made to find out what the Government are doing, but they are simply shoved aside, and to-day we are asked to pass a Bill which calls upon local authorities and others to put themselves in a position to carry out plans when the major and national plans of the country have not been declared. These things ought to be attended to as soon as possible so as to give the local authorities a chance to get ahead with their plans. In regard to the question of special subsidies in difficult areas, nothing has been said on how we are to determine what are called exceptional or special difficulties. Again, it is a

matter of speculation as to what the intentions are for the future.
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to tell us that this or that may happen. We do not know what the actions of a future Secretary of State may be, and it is difficult to ask local authorities to trust to something that may happen in the future. I specially ask whoever is replying for the Government to say whether there is any chance of telling the local authorities and regional planning bodies what the plans of the Government are in regard to the location of industry, with regard to the road bridge across the Forth, and with regard to other questions that have a real bearing on what the future of Scotland is to be.

2.37 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I should like to begin by making a modest complaint to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Buchanan: Why modest?

Mr. Stewart: I will explain. This Bill was available in the Vote Office little less than a fortnight ago. With a Bill like this, I immediately consult with the local authorities in my constituency in order to get their views, because clearly the working of such a Bill depends upon them. I endeavoured, as usual, to do that, but in the short time that was available it was impossible for the local authorities properly to study the Measure. I come to this Debate, therefore, without the benefit of the advice of any local authority in my area. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that we ought to adopt a better proceeding. It is true, as he said, that a considerable time ago he consulted with the Scottish local authorities on the application of the English Act to Scottish conditions. I understand that the meeting took place last August. I think I am right in saying, however, that the local authorities in Scotland have not had time to consider the Measure as it is presented to us.

Mr. Buchanan: The Scottish authorities have had the English Act before them for over six months. What difference is there between the two?

Mr. Stewart: The Secretary of State showed the difference in his speech. The actual text of the Scottish Bill was presented to the House only a fortnight ago, and my plea is that that is not sufficient


time to enable us to consider it properly. The situation is aggravated because we have had a spate of Measures falling on the local authorities in the last year, and where they are not Bills they are schemes. There has, for instance, been the great new health scheme, the Education Act, and, following on that came this Bill, the Nurses Bill and the projected Water Bill. We are putting a strain on local authorities which they simply cannot hear at this time, and I resent the rush tactics which seem to have been employed in this case. I do not see any need for considering this Bill now. Had we been invited to do so a month hence it would have been in good time. As it is, we shall have to go back to our local authorities, and a string of Amendments will come along which could have been largely avoided if a little more time had been given before the Bill was introduced. I know that my right hon. Friend is as rushed as anybody else, and one wonders how he does all he gets through, but he must take it from me that the strain on local authorities can be so great that there will be a danger of collapse. I hope that between now and the Committee stage we shall be able to have a thorough examination of this Measure.
I have only two things to say, because I spoke on the similar Measure for England. The defect of this Bill is the same as the defect of the English Act, namely, that while it deals reasonably adequately with the blitzed areas, it makes no proper provision for the other areas. As the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) said in a passage with which I warmly agree, there was something to be said for a special blitz Bill in England, because of London, Coventry, Hull, Plymouth and a large number of other cities which were blitzed. Scotland, however, is fortunately not in that position. I, therefore, wonder whether this type of Measure was the right way to tackle the problem in Scotland. I should have thought it would have been more appropriate to add to the English Measure a provision or two making it applicable to Scotland so far as the blitzed areas are concerned. Here, however, we have an exceedingly complex Measure to deal with a relatively small problem in Scotland. The real problem in Scotland is the blighted areas. Like every other county, Fife has its shockingly blighted areas, but the local

authorities will get very little special assistance from this Measure. I could take my right hon. Friend to old, almost decaying villages, where for a generation or two there has been a gradual decline, with buildings falling into disrepair. If it is the purpose of the Government to help such areas, let the purpose be supported by real financial assistance. There is very little of it here. A grant of housing subsidies would help. It would, however, help without this Bill, which makes very little difference in that respect. I feel that if the Government want to introduce such a monumental Bill as this it ought to be accompanied by something more substantial to hurry on the work.
In nine-tenths of Scotland the local authorities will be concerned primarily with the blighted area problem, but for that great problem the Bill does not seem to afford a great deal of help. I do not regard it as justice to offer a man whose property is taken compulsorily nothing more than the 1939 price when, as everybody knows, he will not be able to replace what has been taken except by paying a greatly increased sum of money. I represent a very large proportion of humble people. They are not wealthy. The great bulk of my constituents are decent working folk who may have saved a little money. A large number of them own their own houses. It is that kind of person of whom I am speaking. There are hundreds of them. If the Bill becomes operative it will be utterly unfair to take their property because of some planning scheme and to pay them in such a mean way. This is obviously a retrograde Measure and it certainly is not just. I join with some of my hon. Friends opposite in saying that, on the Committee Stage, we should have the fullest opportunity of making our constructive contributions to its improvement.

2.48 p.m.

Mr. McNeil: I agree very much with the grounds around which the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) has skated. Here is a Measure of 40,000 words. It often happens that where there is much to be done there are very few words, and where there is little to be done we have something like this huge manuscript. It may be argued that it is no worse than the English Bill, but that is not true. As has been pointed out, England has had a great deal of blitz


damage, and a comprehensive Measure was needed to deal with the situation. In Scotland we have had little; but we have an unmeasured amount of damage from the years and from neglect. Yet here, where we needed a bulldozer to tackle the problem, we are handed something very much like a teaspoon. The right hon. Gentleman used a figure from my own division, where rather more than 35 per cent. of the homes are overcrowded. That was the figure some eight years ago; it has since risen. The right hon. Gentleman used another and a scarifying figure, which was that there is a density of 700 persons per acre. That is the problem in Scotland, not because of what bombs have done but because of unplanned, haphazard industrial advance. We need a bulldozer, yet we have an ineffective, teaspoon Measure.
There have been frequent references in the Debate to the regenerate days of my right hon. Friend when he wrote a lucid and vigorous English style which was of great propaganda value to us. I am sorry and ashamed that he, with his pen and his imagination, has to come here and accept responsibility for the alleged English in the Bill. I could give dozens of examples from the Bill, but I really must draw his attention to page 48 and to Clause 31 (3) which reads:
In relation to any development by an interim development authority who carry on a statutory undertaking, being development carried out upon land to which Section thirty-three of this Act applies, references in this Section to the Secretary of State"—
one would think that was plain enough, but it goes on:
shall be construed as references to the Secretary of State and the appropriate Minister; and paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) of Section twenty-five of this Act, and Sub-sections (2), (3), (6) and (7) of Section thirty-four of this Act shall apply in relation to a decision under this Section in respect of any such development with the substitution in the said Sub-section (7) for the reference to Section three of the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) (Scotland) Act, 1943, of a reference to Subsection (1) of this Section.
I know the difficulty, but I suggest that the Clause can, perhaps at the cost of some slight nervousness to a lawyer, be substantially reduced with great ease, even by humble politicians like myself, and with advantage to local authorities who will have to read it, if and when they ever operate the Measure.
The Bill does three things. About the first I disagree completely with my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife. The first thing it does is to stabilise values, with minor modifications, at the 1939 price level. It would be iniquitous if local authorities were asked to juggle with any other figure, and it would be impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to treat Scotland in this respect worse than the rest of the country. Secondly, the Bill does in some measure expedite the procedure of acquisition. That is likely to prove true, and the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to such praise as should be given on this point. Thirdly, it gives some slight financial assistance to blitzed areas. I felt even here that, in displaying the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman was aware that he was on shaky ground. Imagine this huge Measure brought before this House to justify the Exchequer in handing over, during a period of five years, the sum of £100,000. That sum is signed across scores of Civil Service desks every afternoon, yet the right hon. Gentleman comes here and says: "Look at this beneficent far-seeing Administration, of which I am a member. We are prepared to give these Scottish local authorities £100,000." Think of the gratitude of Glasgow which, by putting 1d. on its rates, raises £42,000. Are Glasgow people supposed to be impressed by this present of £100,000 from the Government?
I want to point to one condition with which my right hon. Friend dealt at some length. He spoke of the value which would accrue to a local authority from Clause 47. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) referred to this and said it was not necessarily true that in the contemplated area all the houses would be unfit for habitation and that, of course, the additional subsidy refers only to such houses. It is even worse than that. For once, we have a little piece of plain English. It is not sufficient that the houses shall be unfit for human habitation before the local authority can qualify for the extra subsidy. We have a piece of precise English which says:
as to which the Department are satisfied that they are unfit for human habitation and not capable of being rendered fit for human habitation.


There is not a great deal of generosity in those words, and I cannot see that they will mean an additional concession to the local authority. As my hon. Friend says, there are a bewildering number of references to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Gallacher: He is a very important man.

Mr. McNeil: I agree, but he is also a very busy man, and rather more has been thrust upon his shoulders here than should have been. Is it necessary that the Secretary of State shall decide what is an obsolescent or bad lay-out? Could not the technicians, by a fairly simple definition—or an involved definition, if we are to take the Bill as a guide—lay down standards of obsolescence? Moreover, and this is a principle to which this House has frequently held Governments, if the Treasury are to give so little to the local authorities and the local authorities themselves are to find so much for the development which must take place, it is surely offensive that so much should be referred to the Government's representative, in this case the Secretary of State for Scotland. If the Treasury were financing these developments we could appreciate why matters should be referred to the Secretary of State, but local authorities are asked to accept the burden of decision, and their plans have to be authorised by the Secretary of State before they can proceed with them. There are several minor Amendments with which I, like my hon. Friend, hope the Scottish Grand Committee will be asked to deal. As I have said before, I cannot imagine that we can satisfactorily proceed with planning for Scotland and with even the most satisfactory lay-outs until we know what are the Government's intentions for redevelopment in Scotland. Naturally, I do not here blame the right hon. Gentleman. I am not suggesting that he should carry this burden.

Mr. Buchanan: Who should carry it?

Mr. Kirkwood: The Secretary of State should carry it.

Mr. McNeil: It would be rather insulting for me to try to answer my experienced hon. Friend.

Mr. Buchanan: I am sick to death of this sort of thing. There is a Cabinet Minister in this House of Commons, the

Secretary of State, and the hon. Member says he is not to blame, and then he will not tell me who is to blame, We must blame somebody. For goodness' sake let us get away from this sort of thing.

Mr. McNeil: My hon. Friend cannot and must not accuse me of being afraid to lay blame on the shoulders of the Secretary of State for Scotland when I think that blame should rest there.

Mr. Buchanan: Then who is to blame?

Mr. McNeil: I will deal with that also. On occasions I join issue with my right hon. Friend, and I think that he is sometimes offended in consequence. But in this matter of the development of Scotland, the Scottish Office does not possess the power. That power rests between the Treasury, the Board of Trade and the Supply Departments.

Mr. Buchanan: Now we have got it.

Mr. McNeil: Thank you. [Interruption.] And the Ministry of War Transport. I am left in a somewhat delicate position. Perhaps my hon. Friend opposite—

Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the fact that if the Secretary of State for Scotland would make a demand for those powers to be transferred from these Departments to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Scottish Department, he would have the support of all Scottish Members in that fight? It is about time this matter was taken up. Until the right hon. Gentleman does take it up, he is responsible.

Mr. McNeil: I would not dissociate, myself from that, except that, I repeat, we must keep to the facts. There are-certain procedures laid down for us here by your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and by usage, and in this matter of industrial development in Scotland it is to these other Ministers that we must direct our attention. But here we must have support from the Secretary of State for Scotland. There is no use in having even a satisfactory Measure, which I repeat this is not, for housing development unless we also know what are the Government's intentions towards Scotland in all these other matters, which happily are being discussed now, but which must be much more discussed. I return here, as I have before, to the Barlow Report, which has


great significance for Scotland and from which the Government have run away for six years. All the town planning and the best efforts of the Secretary of State are unreal, meaningless and ineffectual Measures until we know what are the Government's intentions in relation to the industrial and commercial development of Scotland.

3.5 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: Almost all the Scottish Members have been on common ground in one thing, that is, the need for amending this Measure in Committee. I do not look on that as offering a great deal of value, because the underlying need of this Measure, if it is to be effective, is financial assistance to the local authority. The Bill can be amended or changed as you like, but unless the question of financial assistance is tackled the Amendments do not matter. This Bill cannot be amended in that respect. I say frankly that if this House had been engaged in real political fighting there would have been every reason for this Bill to have been rejected on Second Reading, because it is a Bill which cannot really be amended during the Committee stage to carry out its functions.
My second point is, What are we doing to-day? We are really discussing an English Bill again. We are merely having this Bill for the sake of giving Scotland a kind of nominal sop. Instead of special sections having been put into the English Bill, we are given this Bill to show that we are not like the Welsh, and other people, and that we have the right to say a few words on the Measure. But as to fundamental principle, this Measure is not one whit different from the English one, and from many angles, it would have been much better if the English Bill and the Scottish Bill had been combined. One of the things usually argued in favour of a separate Scottish Measure, when its provisions may be similar to an English Bill, is that the Scottish Bill makes matters clearer in relation to Scottish law. No one can say that this Bill fulfils that function. I have read this Bill, and only a solicitor trained in the law of conveyance and land legislation could really follow it properly. In my view, unless the problem of national assistance is solved, local government authorities will be hamstrung.
I wish to mention a matter which comes up on the second Measure to be considered to-day, but which to some extent obtrudes here—the whole effect of rating. The Secretary of State has had a Committee sitting in Scotland which, I understand, reported to him months ago. Why he has not published the report is a mystery to me.

Mr. Johnston: I published the first report.

Mr. Buchanan: The report with which I am dealing is that of the Committee on which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) and the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. F. Beattie) sit. Is it published?

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member says it was sent to me before Christmas. I understand it is in the hands of the printers. The first report has been published.

Mr. Buchanan: As far as I know, the second report is not yet published. Rating is at the heart of these matters, and I think we ought to have had the report on rating first, so as to see its effect. Bad as the position of local authorities in Scotland has been, they are going to have an impossible task in regard to the developments set out in this Bill, if the whole cost has to come entirely from the occupier of the house, and nothing from the owner. It will make the problem of the local authorities impossible. These new developments make this matter of rating all the more important.
As regards blitzed and blighted areas, we have been fortunate in Scotland in the first respect. Only two or three places, which are well known, have been affected to any great extent. But the position is different when one turns to the position of blighted areas. The reason why we should have had a different Measure from the English one was touched upon by the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil). At one time I sat on a Committee upstairs, in charge of which was the Lord President of the Court of Session. There we were discussing housing, and an astounding fact emerged. The most densely populated part of England was Shoreditch in the East End of London. The best area in Scotland was the Edinburgh belt, and it was little better in figures than the very worst in England.


That is the position, that the worst in England was very nearly equal to the best in Scotland. That means that blighted populations constitute a much greater question to solve, and a much more urgent one. Our local authorities ought to have been given greater and more adequate power to deal with it.
We hear discussed every day the question of Prestwick aerodrome and the development of Scotland from the point of view of industry. I say, frankly, that unless alongside the development of Prestwick and the Forth Bridge, we have the other things the local authorities and the National Government can do to solve the hideous housing and overcrowding problem, there is little hope for the development of Scotland. I have said before that the present Secretary of State for Scotland has enjoyed a wider measure of popularity than any man I have ever known, so much so that hardly anyone in this House will ever say a word against him. Every time the hon. Member fox East Fife (Mr. Stewart) speaks, he qualifies what he says about the Secretary for Scotland, by bringing in some other Cabinet Minister or Government Department.

Mr. Stewart: I did not say a word to that effect.

Mr. Buchanan: The hon. Member refers to everybody else, but not the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: I never said that.

Mr. Buchanan: Let me say to the Secretary of State for Scotland that he cannot allow our housing conditions to go on so little touched, and he cannot introduce many more Bills like this, and retain popularity. This Bill has little to commend it. It is a long series of words, but it has little to say, either from the local authorities' point of view or from that of the task which it sets out to do. The Secretary of State should give us Scottish Measures, materially different from those of our English friends. If he will not do that, let us give up this farce of having separate discussions for the same Bill—let us give up all that pretence. I hope that in future Measures dealing with vital problems in Scotland will, at least, attempt to tackle problems with something like courage. The right hon. Gentleman in his early days built up a reputation for courage, which was very useful

to us when we were fighting the Lord Advocate and his friends. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to translate some of that early courage into the Bills which he is now introducing, and give us much more realism for Scotland than we are getting to-day.

3.17 p.m.

Mr. McLean Watson: The Secretary of State will have some difficulty in recalling any Measure on which he has got fewer congratulations than he has had to-day. Despite all the respect, and even affection, that I have for him, I am afraid I cannot say much, if anything, in favour of this Measure. So far as I can see, it will not affect my constituency at all. I do not see that any particular advantage is going to be reaped by the electors of the Dunfermline Burghs. The small burghs are not planning authorities: they are looked after by the county council, under the arrangement made in the 1929 Act, by which the smaller authorities were robbed of many of their powers. The larger burgh of my constituency has had a planning scheme for many years. Other local authorities which have not planned their areas may get some benefit from the Measure, by having their schemes approved by the Secretary of State much more speedily than will the principal burgh in my constituency. When Dunfermline Burgh decided to have a town planning scheme, many years ago, they drafted their plan, and sent it to the Department of Health in Edinburgh. How long it was there I do not know, but I think it lay there for some years before it was approved. [Interruption.] Yes, they may have discovered that there were some old things there that they wanted to yet rid of, and the Dunfermline scheme may have been one of them. So far as they can, the Dunfermline authority have adhered to that planning scheme; so this Measure will not affect my constituency—or very little, at any rate.
We are not one of the blitzed areas—we are very grateful for that, and I hope that we shall go through the rest of the war without experiencing any blitz. Therefore, we do not come within the blitz provisions. But in practically all our burghs, including the large burgh to which I have referred, there are blighted areas. I agree with the criticism that has been made by many of my colleagues,


that this Measure will not give the blighted areas any advantage. Unless adequate financial provision is made, there is no possibility of the smaller burghs in the county replanning and rebuilding their blighted areas. Although this Bill deals partly with the blighted areas, I believe that the original intention was that it should deal with the blitzed areas. It would have been better to have had two Measures, one dealing with blitzed areas, and the other with town and country planning. Then we might have got more from the Exchequer—I am very glad to see the Chancellor here.

Mr. McKinlay: The hon. Member is an optimist.

Mr. Watson: The Chancellor of the Exchequer may surprise us some day. He comes along from time to time and announces grants for this, that, and the other, running into hundreds of millions, and it does not seem to upset him—in fact, he seems to enjoy it. There is a possibility of a scheme for repairing blitzed areas, and we might have got substantial grants from that. If ever there is a scheme for replanning the blighted areas, we might have got additional grants out of that. The Chancellor might as well know that the burden of complaint against this Measure is the want of adequate financial provision. If he will provide the money, the local authorities will willingly plan their blighted and blitzed areas. But the Chancellor should remember that the local authorities before this war had sufficient difficulty in working the various housing Acts that were passed by this House. I daresay that a number of them regret that they did not build more than they did, when they had those housing Acts, but a great many local authorities were building, getting rid of their overcrowded areas, and putting the population into new houses. It was going on increasingly before the war, and had the war not come, we undoubtedly would have been in a different position so far as the blighted areas are concerned.
This planning is for the future. We expect new, or at any rate improved, areas in our cities, towns, and countryside, in the years to come. In the county of Fife we are going to have very big developments. This is a matter that I have raised before, and I raise it again,

because it is of some importance. We are assured that in the county of Fife there will be a big mining development. We are told that several large new pits are to be sunk in the county; and houses will have to be provided, because in almost all cases the pits will be some distance from the present centres of population. I wonder what will happen when these new colliery towns are planned. Are they to be planned in the immediate neighbourhood of the new collieries? The Scottish Office exercise some sort of supervision over the new houses that are to be built in connection with these new collieries, and I understand that as soon as the war is over, and the labour and materials are available, the new collieries are to be sunk. Will the planning authorities give attention to the possibility of undermining? In at least one of the burghs that I represent there is not a single street that has not been affected by undermining. Are the planners going to be discouraged by the Scottish Office from setting down new houses where they are likely to be wrecked by underground workings? So far as I can see, in connection with the new collieries, there will be no protection against surface damage, and any buildings erected near these collieries will undoubtedly be wrecked sooner or later. It has gone on in Cowdenbeath year after year. The result has been broken drains, broken water-mains and gas-mains—everything broken by these underground workings. I hope that when plans are submitted to the Scottish Office by the Fife County Council for new houses in connection with these collieries, the Scottish Office will keep a close eye on that matter at any rate, and make sure that houses erected with public money are not wrecked by the private enterprise that will be taking the coal out of the county of Fife.
I am sorry we cannot give the Secretary of State the congratulations that we usually give him on a Scottish Measure. I agree with those who have said that we are slavishly following the English example. I do not think that there would have been any complaint from a Scottish Member if this Bill had not been introduced.

Mr. McKinlay: The Government can withdraw it.

Mr. Watson: I do not agree that it should be withdrawn yet. If we can get


£100,000 out of the Treasury, it is worth having. At any rate, the Scottish Office came to the conclusion that, after the English Bill had been passed, we had to get something out of the Exchequer—and this is what we have got. The blitzed areas may get something out of it, but, unless some additional financial provision is made in regard to the blighted areas to make it possible for these local authorities to face this matter of planning, the Measure is not going to be of very great advantage to Scotland.

3.30 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: It is some time since I had the temerity to address the House of Commons, particularly in a Scottish Debate, and I trust that my right hon. Friend will recognise that I am very definitely imbued with the idea of giving any assistance I can, however meagre it may be, to get the Scottish Office to recognise how ill this Bill has been received, not only by Members of o this House, but by local authorities throughout Scotland. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the name of this Bill is very misleading. It will not be understood by the people of Scotland, who have, for many years, in their great distress, been looking forward to a very definite, comprehensive Measure that would better the conditions of life in that country. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) has suggested that the Bill could be withdrawn. It does not matter whether this Bill is withdrawn or not. I do not believe that any local authority will be inspired by the wording of this Bill, or by the restrictions placed on local authorities, to try to operate one paragraph of the Bill. They want something different. I have, on various occasions, visited local authorities, and I have seen the plans of Glasgow with regard to post-war development. These local authorities throughout Scotland have put all they could into making definite, comprehensive plans to clear away the distressing conditions that now exist there.
I would, particularly, appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe the Secretary of State for Scotland has great difficulty, almost insurmountable difficulty, in moving the Treasury, or his Cabinet colleagues, on matters appertaining to Scotland. If my right hon. Friend has that difficulty, he ought to stand at

that Box and inform every Scottish Member of that fact, so that we can deal with the people on the spot. I want to put this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is no use in taking much time in going over the conditions of the people in Scotland. There is no use referring to the small areas of actual war damage, but I say that the great deterioration of houses in Scotland can be definitely described as war damage. Those slums which we had before the war have now become slummier. Those terrible districts of rotten houses, badly-built areas and bad sanitary conditions have steadily worsened during the war because of war conditions, because of the lack of labour and materials. Because of war circumstances, these conditions have greatly deteriorated. The Secretary of State for Scotland, even before this war, could tell the House of conditions in Scotland that did not appertain to any other part of Europe—and that in "Bonnie Scotland." He could describe those conditions with his pen, and by word of mouth so ably that he must know perfectly well that general conditions in Scotland have grown worse and worse until to-day the position is intolerable.
People are trying to get housing of any description, and are even travelling from slum to slum, to gain a small modicum more of comfort than they had in their previous houses. Local authorities, as the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire knows from bitter experience, are absolutely swamped with applications, nine-tenths of them deserving cases, coming from people whose fathers or sons are serving in the Army and whose girls are in the Services, and who are clamouring for ordinary, decent housing conditions, never mind for luxury. I put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is himself a Scotsman, that he must know of these conditions in the Highlands, Lowlands and Midlands of Scotland, and, remembering this fact, I am not cynical when I say that, after watching the retreat of the Government, as victory draws nearer, from all their promises and pledges of a happy land, and a social insurance scheme, I am not surprised to see the Secretary of State for Scotland joining in that retreat. I regret very much to have to say it. Remembering the condition, in which Scotland is now, with this chronic demand for the most ordinary conditions of life, with people asking for


ordinary lavatory and washing accommodation—remembering all these evils that existed before and have grown steadily worse during this war, while our people are playing their part in winning the war and the manhood of Scotland is fighting this war, it is regrettable when the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes forward and agrees to let the Secretary of State for Scotland have £100,000 out of the National Exchequer in order to try to remedy these conditions.
I want to say, quite frankly, that this is not what we expected. This Bill will not, in any way, assist the Scottish people. Local authorities are restricted. Why restrict them, when they are asking for loans, to the Treasury rate of interest? Why restrict the people, who have drawn up these post-war planning schemes, who have gone to great expense and whose engineers have made important decisions, to the Treasury rate of interest? Why restrict the Secretary of State, in almost every important decision he must make with regard to this Bill, to consultations with the Treasury? We do not need £100,000 for Scotland; we need £100,000,000. If we can spend money in warfare, we can spend it in building up a new country. Millions and millions of pounds are required to rehabilitate Scotland, not £100,000.
With the mining industry in Scotland practically extinct, with war industries now established that will be cut off by the English heads in London—as the Minister knows from bitter experience—with industry being destroyed in Scotland, and with very few new industries remaining there, despite the promises of Cabinet Ministers, the position will generally become worse. I say that the provision of £100,000 and the restrictions on the Secretary of State make this Bill look as if it never existed. This Bill is looked upon with suspicion by local authorities. They will not have any spirit of enterprise to co-operate with the Government in regard to it, and I ask the Secretary of State to take into consideration the advice of the best friends he ever had—his own colleagues in this House, who stood by him in this war as no party has ever stood by a Secretary of State before. The right hon. Gentleman has received consideration and an absence of criticism, because we have recognised his difficulties throughout the

war years, in a way such as no Secretary of State for Scotland ever experienced before. When the right hon. Gentleman hears, to-day, his own friends and colleagues and hon. Members in all parts of the House condemning this Bill as entirely inadequate and unsatisfactory, I ask him to take heed of their advice, and to see to it that something is done in the near future to bring forward another Bill, if it is necessary, dealing with the clamant needs of the country to which we belong.

3.41 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): There has been a considerable amount of criticism about the form of this Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: That is an understatement.

The Lord Advocate: Quite frankly, I am not surprised, because when I first saw the Bill, I must say I thought it one of the least lovable Bills I had ever seen and I am still not particularly enamoured of it. But I would like to explain to the House how the Bill comes to have the form in which it is presented. There is no question of any blind following of the English Bill. I think I was largely responsible for the attempt, when the time came, to draft the Scottish Bill, and I tried to see whether we could not start again with a clean sheet and get together, in as intelligible a form as possible, these provisions which were required for Scotland. But, as I got on with the task, I found that, even a new draft was going to look astonishingly like the English Bill, and for this reason. This Bill is a machinery Bill. Reference was made by one hon. Member to bulldozers. This is the bulldozer, but it is not the fuel. This produces the tools, but it does not produce motive power, and the tools have to be rather elaborate. All the criticism, and there has been a lot, about the absence of financial assistance, the impossibility of carrying on under present financial arrangements and of making this Bill effective, may be perfectly well-founded, but it has nothing to do with this Bill or its purpose.
The purpose of the Bill is to complete the machinery which it is necessary to put in the hands of the local authorities in Scotland, in order that they may do their job, generally, with regard to planning operations, and particularly with


regard to the eradication of blighted areas. Of course, in addition to machinery powers you must have motive power, but we do not deal with that in this Bill, for a very simple reason. It has already been made public, and the Secretary of State referred to it this morning, that, in two respects at least, there is to be a re-examination of the present financial position of local authorities. There is to be a re-examination of the subsidies and of the block grant, and it did seem quite unnecessary and useless to start on financial considerations in this Bill when the whole thing would have to be put back in the melting-pot in a comparatively short time. There is to be financial provision for the blitzed area type of operations, because that type of operation may well be, indeed, probably will be, carried out before this re-examination of the general financial position can be concluded. But, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, you cannot begin to pull down houses in the immediate future in Scotland, until you have achieved a very considerable increase in the existing number of houses, by means of new building.
It looks quite beyond practical possibility to begin to remedy the state of affairs in blighted areas before the time comes for this re-examination of the financial position. Therefore, I say to those critics—and there are many—who have mentioned finance that the Government have deliberately omitted finance from this Bill, except on the small points I have mentioned. Another Bill will be necessary very soon, in any event, and it does not seem useful to put something into this Bill which will have to be reopened.

Mr. McKinlay: Is the Lord Advocate suggesting that the planning authorities should prepare plans not knowing how far they are going to need national and local funds? How can they plan ahead if they do not know what the position is going to be if the promoting authority overspills into another authority's area? We cannot make plans unless we know where we stand financially.

Mr. McNeil: If we are not going to make plans, why give us the Bill?

The Lord Advocate: I do not always accept the view of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay). There are a number of marginal cases where the

way in which the local authority will tackle the job will depend very largely on the precise details of the financial aid available, but there are a great number of other cases where the local authority can make and proceed with its plans and deal with the question whatever the accession to the present financial grants may happen to be. These plans take a long time to prepare and we think that the machinery for dealing with the land when acquired is perhaps more important. Acquiring land in Scotland is not so difficult, I agree with the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire. A great deal has to be done with land when it is obtained, and it is for that purpose that this Bill is really valuable and important. Coming back to the point I began on, I would say that, in trying to elaborate this Bill and to get it together, every Clause really had to come in on its merits. The Clauses were practically all in the English Bill, but if the Clauses are examined to see whether they are necessary for Scottish conditions or not, I do not think there is one which does not have some relevance to Scottish conditions. I am asked—the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. McNeil) raised this—whether we could not write out the Clauses in rather more intelligible phraseology. That is not easy. When dealing with very complicated questions and a very complicated background, such as here, it is not easy to produce a draft in good English so that "he who runs may read." I do not think that we have been very guilty of the sin of legislating by reference here. It is only done in a few cases. But there was another reason why we found it difficult to bring these Clauses into shape.

Mr. Gallacher: The Lord Advocate said every Clause relates to Scotland. Why should it be necessary for all these other Ministers to be brought in on questions affecting Scottish administration when we have a Secretary of State and a Department and our own local authorities who can deal with the job?

The Lord Advocate: That is rather a different point, but I will answer it. There are many other Ministers who have jurisdiction in Scotland. The Minister of Transport is responsible for trunk roads, the President of the Board of Trade with regard to statutory authorities, and the Minister of Fuel and Power with regard to electricity authorities and, therefore,


we must bring in these Ministers. There is another reason why some of these Clauses are rather more complicated than one would have liked. It has been a generally recognised principle of draughts-manship that, if we want to do the same thing as has been done in another Act of Parliament previously, we should not alter the words, otherwise the court, or whoever has to consider it, will say, "The first Act says this and the second Act puts it differently and, therefore, Parliament must have meant something different." Therefore, we are tied to forms of wording which have been previously accepted and adopted by this House and by Parliament, and if we depart from those forms, even with the laudable object of simplicity, we are liable to get into very severe trouble. This fully explains the natural, unlovable form of this Bill. I dislike it very much but, frankly, I have tried and cannot find anything better which would achieve the object we have in view.

Mr. Gallacher: If the Lord Advocate cannot support the Bill, why not withdraw it?

Mr. J. J. Davidson: The Lord Advocate has referred to the unlovable nature of the Bill and has assured us, to a certain extent, that something will be coming along soon with regard to financial provisions which will enable us to expend more on social welfare. Can he indicate exactly what form this new legislation will take?

The Lord Advocate: I can add nothing to what my right hon. Friend said in his opening speech. He was asked several questions about that and he repeated in great detail what the position was, and I do not think that I can add anything useful to what he said then. So much for the form of the Bill and the explanation of why it is in its present form.

Mr. Gallacher: "Apology," the Lord Advocate means.

The Lord Advocate: I do not mean "apology." I have tried to explain that, with the best will in the world and starting by trying to do it differently, we found that it could not be done. If the hon. Member can suggest a better way of achieving these objects within the limits we have set ourselves, we shall be very glad of his advice and assistance.

Mr. Gallacher: The Lord Advocate says "If the hon. Member can suggest a better way." There are a number of proposals. If the Secretary of State will call in Scottish Members to discuss and prepare Scottish legislation I will make very good proposals.

The Lord Advocate: I am not making any apology for this Bill, but explaining how it comes about that it is so bulky and so difficult to read, and I am explaining also why it does not deal with topics, the omission of which has been criticised by many hon. Members, and I cannot add usefully to what I have said, and must leave it there. I will come to one point raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine-Hill) and several other hon. Members. Are we accepting the compromise solution on the compensation proposals or are we not? I think that the consensus of opinion in this House is that we should. We have decided to accept the compromise and, accordingly, Part II of the Bill is the same as the English Part II, with the necessary adaptations to meet the different terminology of our land laws. The hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) raised the question of improvements to land. He will find, if he looks at Clause 53 and Clause 55, that we value at 1939 prices land in the state in which it is to-day. I am not sure whether the example he has in mind would allow of the application of Clause 55 or not, but conceivably it might.
The right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) put very valuable constructive suggestions as to how this matter might be dealt with but I ought to explain one or two points raised by his remarks. He rather took the view that we are not doing enough for national, as distinct from local, planning. That view seems to be completely contradicted by other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, who takes the view that the Secretary of State appears far too much in the picture. They cannot have it both ways. If there is to be national planning, there must be a national authority, which is the Secretary of State, who is given an over-riding jurisdiction, or there must be some other body in his place. With regard to local autonomy and national planning, we think we have reached a reasonable compromise between these two, each of them


desirable ideals. We have reserved local autonomy to an even greater extent than in the English Act, and if there is any instance in the present Bill where hon. Members think the Secretary of State appears and ought to be left out, there is the Committee stage. Let me say, in order to meet the points put by one or two hon. Members, there is not to be a Motion that this Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House and the Committee stage can, therefore, be run by Scottish Members, and, in order to meet the point that it has been rather rushed—I do not accept it—there will be an adequate interval between the Second Reading and the Committee stage to enable hon. Members to decide upon the line of action they wish to take.

Mr. McKinlay: What about the promoting authority which is going into another authority's area?

The Lord Advocate: I must deal with those points when I come to them. I am at present dealing with the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh, and I am pointing out that his views seemed to conflict somewhat with the views of some of the hon. Members who sit behind him, and we think that we have taken a middle course. There is a particular reason why we do not require these wide powers here so much. Blighted areas are, generally speaking, not spread over the areas of several planning authorities. They are generally right in the middle of the area of one authority and that one area, subject to the points my hon. Friend has in mind, will have complete charge of the whole of the re-development, as it should.
Now comes the question, What about the spill-over, rating and so on? That raises, at once, the most vexed question about rating. The main apprehension of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire here was with regard to rating. It is impossible, in this Bill, to reform the Scottish rating system. I am not going to stand at this Box and say that I like all the aspects of the Scottish rating system. I do not, and I have no doubt that this is one matter which, ultimately, will have to be dealt with, but we cannot, in this Bill, deal with matters which go to the root of Scottish rating law.

Mr. McKinlay: It is not as complicated as that, but I do not want to embark

on a discussion on the rights or wrongs of the Scottish rating system. All I am pointing out is that if a blighted area in, say, Glasgow is over spilled, according to the proposals of Professor Abercrombie, into East Kilbride, the promoting authority is Glasgow. Do I take it that the Lanarkshire county council collect the value that Glasgow has paid for the work in East Kilbride?

The Lord Advocate: As I say, we cannot alter the fundamental rules of the rating system in this Bill. I know there has been an age-long quarrel between town and landward areas over this question of who is to get the rating benefit of new, built-up areas but we cannot possibly put that matter right in this Bill. I agree that that, and many other aspects of the rating system, require to be examined but I cannot say more than that the present law must prevail until there is an opportunity to alter it. I hope that when we do, as I think we must, examine, at least some parts of the rating system, in the immediate future, that this can be done by common agreement without any political difference between the parties. It seems to me that all parties are interested in reform and I hope that these and other matters of the kind can be approached in a non-party spirit, with a view to getting a fair solution, in circumstances where, at present, I agree there is a great deal of difficulty.
The other point my right hon. Friend raised was about roads and location of industry. Plainly, the Scottish Office not being responsible for the location of industry, I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend in this matter.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Surely it takes a prominent part in consultation.

The Lord Advocate: Certainly, but I cannot make a public pronouncement on the location of industry here. On roads, that matter is dealt with by Clause 9 (3) and Clause 3, which make it clear that approach roads to these reconstruction areas, are to be properly planned, and I think my right hon. Friend's point is met there. I think the only other point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbartonshire which I have not mentioned is that under Clause 18 (5). The hon. Member questioned the desirability of giving a preference to former inhabi-


tants of the area when it is rebuilt. I should have thought it was plain justice that, if you turn a man out because the area in which he lives needs to be re-planned and rebuilt, you let him come back again into that area in preference to somebody who had never been there before. I am bound to say that, in principle, I think this Sub-section is very much justified, and I hope that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will see that it really is not as bad as he thinks it is.

Mr. McKinlay: Let me make this clear. I am objecting to insistence being made that they get back again. There may be rag-and-bone merchants in the area who are not wanted back again, just as there may be "pubs" in the area which you do not want. As I understand the Bill, there is no option and they cannot be kept out.

The Lord Advocate: Nobody has a vested right in that sense, but even a rag-and-bone merchant must live. It is quite true, if you have by-laws and restrictions that certain trades are not to be carried on in an area, then those by-laws must be observed. If you propose a by-law which turns people out, that may be done in the proper way. But you should not discriminate, unless there is some very good health reason or something of that sort. You really should not refuse a man who belongs to that area the right to go back to it except on some very important ground that it is undesirable in the public interest.

Mr. McNeil: Would my right hon. and learned Friend permit me to develop the point I made? I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay). If a local authority has to carry the cost of redeveloping the area, why should the Secretary of State have the right to say to that local authority, "You must reinstate that man"? The Secretary of State carries no responsibility in the matter at all; it is completely on the local authority, and yet in this Clause the Secretary can obtrude himself and say, "Replace that man."

The Lord Advocate: I thought my right hon. Friend had gone a very long way to meeting that line of objection, which I agree is a formidable one, because unlike England we have limited the power of the Secretary of State to interfere to cases where there is either unfair dis-

crimination or oppression. I do think that is a considerable improvement on the English Act and that it meets wholly or, at any rate, to a great extent, the points which have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Ross Taylor) raised the question of non-satutory gas undertakings. Those bodies have been recognised, I agree, in the past. They are not, I think, recognised in the Bill as it stands, but I can give the assurance that their position will be carefully examined between now and the Committee stage and we shall see whether we think it appropriate to bring them into the Clauses which deal with statutory undertakings. I would not like to go further than that just now.
I think I have dealt now with all the specific points that were raised, and with the general criticisms. In conclusion I commend this Bill to the House as a useful, and indeed, an indispensable Measure; not a Measure which covers the whole ground, not a Measure which can be worked by itself without relation to other powers and facilities, but a Measure without which there can be no real progress. You cannot really progress with the elimination of blighted areas, unless you have powers, given in this Bill for the first time, for the proper redevelopment of those areas. There are powers already, in plenty, although not so expeditious as under this Bill, for getting rid of the obsolete property. Those powers are tightened up and expedited by the Bill, but there are no proper powers yet, to enable the local authority to carry out and control the redevelopment of the area, once the old property is removed. We give those powers here. Nobody has questioned their adequacy or their efficacy, and accordingly I say that the Bill as it stands has not been criticised in the House. The sole criticism has been that it does not go far enough. We agree it does not. It does not touch finance but, so far as the Bill goes, I do claim that there has been no criticism—apart from the form of the Bill, on which I have explained the position—of the substance of the proposals, and that they are essential to the proper conduct of the affairs of local authorities.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with respect to Scotland for the acquisition and development of land for planning purposes, for amending the law relating to town and country planning, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the following payments, that is to say:—

A. (1) Payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of grants to local planning authorities in respect of loan charges on moneys borrowed by them for defraying, or contributing towards, the cost of acquiring or clearing—

(a) areas of extensive war damage, of amounts equal to such loan charges for two years, together with a proportion of the charges for further years up to eight, or in certain cases thirteen, being a proportion fixed by reference to the extent to which land in an area of extensive war damage remains by reason of war damage incapable of being brought into use for a substantial purpose and so as to provide a substantial return;
(b) land to be used for the re-location of population or industry from areas of extensive war damage or to be used as an open space or otherwise in an undeveloped state in substitution for land in such areas which is so used, of amounts equal to such loan charges for two years, together with half the charges for a further two years;
(c) land for highway purposes relating to such areas or to land to be used as aforesaid, of amounts equal to such loan charges for two years.

(2) Payment into the Exchequer of any sums received in pursuance of the said Act of the present Session in repayment of any such grants.

For the purposes of this paragraph—

(i) local planning authorities shall be deemed to have incurred loan charges on moneys belonging to them which are applied by them for defraying, or contributing towards, such cost as aforesaid as if the moneys had been borrowed on terms to be fixed by the Treasury;
(ii) land appropriated by local planning authorities for any purpose of the said Act of the present Session shall be treated as having been acquired for that purpose out of moneys belonging to them at a cost determined as mentioned in the said Act;
(iii) payments by local planning authorities in respect of restrictions on the development or use of land acquired by them subject to the restrictions shall be treated as a part of the cost of acquiring the land defrayed out of moneys belonging to them.

B. (1) Payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be re-

quired to be paid into the Road Fund for the purpose of meeting the cost incurred by the Minister of war Transport of acquiring land for purposes relating to trunk roads as mentioned in the said Act of the present Session.

(2) Payment into the Exchequer of any contributions received by the said Minister from local planning authorities in respect of such cost.

C. Payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses incurred by any Minister under the said Act of the present Session in paying compensation to person's (including statutory undertakers) in respect of the extinguishment or vesting of or interference with rights or servitudes over land or apparatus on land, in complying with conditions imposed in connection with the use of churches or burial grounds, or in making payments to persons displaced in the carrying out of redevelopment.

D. Payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under Section three of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1938, which is attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(i) extending contributions under the said Act of 1938 to housing accommodation rendered necessary by displacements, occurring in the carrying out of redevelopment of land acquired under the said Act of the present Session, from houses unfit for human habitation;
(ii) providing that any area of land acquired under the said Act of the present Session and used for the purpose of providing housing accommodation under the Housing (Scotland) Acts, 1925 to 1944, as to which the Secretary of State is satisfied that the conditions specified in Sub-section (1) of Section thirteen of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, exist therein, shall for the purposes of proviso (a) to Subsection (2) of Section one of the said Act of 1938 he deemed to be a redevelopment area;
(iii) providing that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that any area of land acquired as aforesaid could have been acquired under Part I of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, as being land in, or adjoining, or surrounded by, a clearance area, and that the land includes dwelling houses or other premises which are neither unfit for human habitation nor injurious nor dangerous to health, the dwelling houses and other premises shall for the purposes of the said proviso he deemed to have been purchased under the said Part I as being such dwelling houses or other premises as are mentioned in paragraph (ii) of the said proviso.

E. Payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of remuneration and allowances to members of any tribunal constituted under the said Act of the present Session for the assessment of compensation under that Act to statutory undertakers.—(King's recommendation signified.)—[Mr. T. Johnston.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — HYDRO-ELECTRIC UNDERTAKINGS (VALUATION FOR RATING) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.11 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I approach this Measure with, I hope, due humility, and I ask for the forbearance of the technical experts in the House if I fail in the fullest explanation of what is the most technical and complicated issue I have ever set out to explain. The genesis of this Bill is to be found in the report of the Departmental Committee on Hydro-Electric Development in Scotland which was presided over by the Lord Justice Clerk. This report—and I may say there were no partisan politics in it at all, one of the signatories to the report was the chairman of the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society—was unanimous and was presented to the House in December, 1942. If hon. Members look at paragraphs 73 to 79 of that report, they will see in the main what recommendations were made. The report said:
We wish to draw attention to the liability of hydro-electric public supply undertakings to local taxation; for the methods applied to such undertakings are so adjusted as to discriminate adversely against hydro-electric undertakings and to impose on them a much heavier burden than on equivalent steam undertakings. This adverse discrimination does not rest on any decision of policy but is the accidental result of the application of rules devised by the Courts half a century ago on the basis of Acts passed when electricity supply was in its infancy.
Then they go on to say:
Without detailing the intricacies of the revenue principle of valuation … a steam undertaking is allowed to deduct the very large sums expended annually on coal or other fuel: but a hydro-electric undertaking, in addition to having no fuel costs to deduct, is prohibited from deducting any part of the annual charges on its civil engineering works which are, of course, a counterpart of the fuel costs.
Then they asked for authoritative comparisons which they obtained. They say that a steam station producing the same number of kilowatts would pay in rates £35,000, but if operated by water power about £106,900—just about three times the amount.
They go on to say that no justification in principle has ever been alleged for this anomaly, and that the Electricity Commissioners have consistently reported in

favour of rectifying this discrimination. As the great bulk of the hydro-electric resources are in Scotland the problem, they hold, is primarily a Scottish problem. They go further and say that these suggestions apply to the existing hydro-electric undertakings, but apply even more to new schemes to be carried out by the new Board. In paragraph 79 they say:
We accordingly recommend that provision should be made in the case of the proposed new schemes for exemption from rates, either permanently or for a prolonged development period. No doubt it is a boon to Highland local authorities to be able to reduce (or to avoid raising) their poundage rates and so relieve some of their ratepayers of part of their burden by collecting large sums, exigible under obsolete valuation and rating law, from electricity supply undertakings, especially as the existence within their area of such undertakings entails little or no extra cost and the payments which are collected are, therefore, in the main clear profit.
That was a definite and unanimous recommendation of the Lord Justice Clerk's Committee. They said that there was discrimination as between a steam station and a hydro station, that about three times the rates were collected from the hydro station from the same number of kilowatts produced as from the coal station. They collected evidence that this meant that in areas in the Highlands of Scotland, for example, where hydro-electric plants were in operation, people had to pay unduly high prices for their electricity supplies because of this rating anomaly. But they did not tell us more; they did not tell us by what means these anomalies could be averted. So what we did next was to set up a special Committee on the valuation and rating of hydro-electric undertakings in Scotland. I set up that Committee as impartially as possible. We got the Dean of Faculty to be chairman.

Mr. Kirkwood: Which one?

Mr. Johnston: Mr. McIntyre, who is now Lord Sorn. Then we got the Lord Provost of Glasgow to be a member, the Deputy-Convener of the county of Inverness, and we had two hon. Members of this House, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) and the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. F. Beattie). We had the Secretary of the Association of Local Valuation Assessors, we had the town clerk of Paisley and the city chamberlain of Edinburgh, so that whatever else one may think about the conclusions of that


Committee, I think it will be agreed that it was not packed by any one interest or any one side. This Committee came forward, after taking most learned evidence and giving most careful consideration to this intricate problem, with three recommendations. They put forward three possible ways out of the difficulty. By the way, I forgot to say that the Electricity Commissioners for many years have been drawing attention to this extraordinary anomaly, although I do not know that they have ever condescended to recommend a particular way out.
At any rate, here are the recommendations which were made by the McIntyre Committee, as we will call it. First, they said that hydro-electric undertakings in Scotland should be permanently relieved of part of the heavy burden of local rates which are paid under the present rating and valuation system. That was a recommendation of the Cooper Committee. They said that to achieve this the existing law and practice should be modified in one of three ways. They said that it might be by deduction of an additional 25 per cent. from the gross annual value of the generating works of the undertaking when arriving at the net annual and rateable value. From rich and poor, costly and cheap stations alike, they said that 25 per cent. should be deducted. I will tell the House in a few moments why I did not choose to accept that recommendation. The next alternative was: By deduction from the gross revenue of the undertaking, in calculating its gross annual value, of a sum equal to 3½ per cent. upon the capital expended on its generating works in excess of £30 per kilowatt installed. In other words, they were going to relate the relief to the rate of interest that the concern happened to have paid. I will say in a moment why did not choose to accept that recommendation.
The third alternative was to adjust the valuation of the generating works in accordance with the proportion which £30 per kilowatt installed at the generating station bears to the actual constructional cost per kilowatt installed. In other words, they say you can achieve your end, and get equality and justice as between plant and plant, if you equate your relief, not according to the interest charged, but according to the capital cost at which the station was erected. The

advantage of this last recommendation was that the more costly and inaccessible the station is—say, in the further parts of the Highlands—the greater the necessity for a relief, if we are to get these stations developed at all. In these far-flung areas, it may be that the cost will be more than £30 per kilowatt. The more it is over that figure, the more the relief will be. After carefully considering these three recommendations, and taking counsel with everybody I could, I came to the conclusion that, in order to secure the utmost possible development, the largest number of stations in the Highlands, this third method—which we will call method C—was the most efficacious. That being so my next step was to consult the local authority associations, because, obviously, they, particularly in the Highland areas, may be very heavily prejudiced if their rating systems are completely upset. While no authorities like to have their rating systems upset, I am thankful to say that the local authorities think that of these three methods the third, method C, is the least objectionable—I will put it no higher than that. Indeed, the Counties of Cities' Association say they are not concerned, and the other two Associations say they have no objection to method C, if a concession is to be given.
If we were right in saying that it was inadvisable that we should give a uniform deduction where the costs of construction may be cheap or dear, if we were right in coming to the conclusion that we ought not to relate relief to interest charges, but came to the conclusion that it was advisable that we should relate relief to the capital costs of construction how, then, could we meet the local authorities on the matter? By and large, what we have done is this: We have said to the local authorities that no relief shall be applied unless and until equivalent new constructional works, hydro-electric installations, are created in their areas.
I am probably not putting it with the same technical accuracy as my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) would put it, but I am trying to get the idea across to other Members who do not have his technical experience. If that be so, no local authority is prejudiced. It may be that in the case of future developments they will not gain increased rates until this


rating relief has been deducted, but no local authority is prejudiced by this method and what will be the case, I am perfectly sure, is that citizens will equally gain in cheaper electricity. They will gain because of the new developments and the Hydro Board—and I will say a word or two in a moment as to how that relief must be passed on in so far as the Grampian Company are concerned. Clause 5 of this Bill deals with the method by which undertakers other than the Hydro-Electric Board must return whatever relief they get either by development of their system of distribution or by reduced prices to their consumers. That is our intention. Either one thing or the other must be done. They must either develop their distribution system to the extent of the relief they get, or they must cheapen the cost to their consumers. This relief is not going as a relief to shareholders. Neither the Hydro-Electric Board nor the Grampian Company, which is an existing statutory undertaker and covers large tracts of land, is treated in the slightest way differently in so far as new works are concerned. The Hydro Board gets no relief until it puts down its stations and as far as the Grampian Company, who are already paying rates under the existing system, are concerned, they will only get relief after there are new works created, either by the Hydro-Electric Board or the Grampian Company in the area to the equivalent amount of that reduction, and even then whatever relief they get must be either passed on to the consumer or used to develop electricity in the area.
I know that these rating issues bristle with anomalies. The more one studies this subject the more one feels that the whole thing requires root-and-branch alteration, but I hope the House will agree with us that, at any rate, here is a serious anomaly and that, unless we do something to relieve it, we shall crab the development of hydro electricity and we shall maintain costly prices to the consumer in many of these sparsely populated areas. We are anxious to see better location of industry and more amenities for the people, and to see that they get cheaper electricity. The only way in which we can conceive of this being done is so to equalise matters as between steam station prices and hydro prices, that the ideas I have announced can be brought

to realisation. I am not saying that this Measure deals with anything like the total number of serious and grievous anomalies that abound. There are other concerns which come to us and say "Why are we not in this?" I am not sure whether all these people have exhausted their legal remedies, but whether that is so or not, here is a recommendation unanimously supplied to us by the Lord Justice Clerk's Committee, unanimously supported by the Dean of Faculty's Committee, and, as far as we can see, we provide in this Bill an equitable and reasonable method of meeting these difficulties without doing any injustice whatever to any existing local ratepayers, and after consultation with the local authorities I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Stephen: On page iii of the Explanatory Memorandum, the rateable value in 1946–7 of new generating works is given as £7,500 and of old generating works as £30,000. Then it is stated that the total is £37,000. Should it not be £37,500?

Mr. Johnston: Yes. I am sorry. A mistake has been made and my hon. Friend is quite right.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: My right hon. Friend apologised for his lack of technical knowledge in expounding the terms of the Bill. I think I am only expressing the views of the House when I say that his exposition of a very difficult technical subject left little to be desired. It was clear and cogent and I am glad that those who have more expert knowledge than I, including the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), agree with my less knowledgeable lay opinion, that it was also accurate. We are indebted to my right hon. Friend for the way in which he introduced the Measure. As to the substance of the Bill, I approached his proposals with a certain lack of enthusiasm. Being aware of the heavy responsibilities which have been already put upon the shoulders of the local authorities, and the increased burden which they are likely to have to bear in the future, I was not enamoured of anything which would still further deprive them of rates. This Bill, which prima facie reduces the resources of local authorities seemed to be regrettable even if it was a regrettable necessity. But,


when I came to look at the matter further and read the report of the Macintyre Committee, I came to the realisation that there was a good deal to be said on the other side.
The simple fact, as it seems to me, is that the rating system of the country is not only lull of anomalies as my right hon. Friend said but it has become to a very large extent national, particularly when it is a matter of the proper rateable value of public utility companies. In the days when the rating system was invented, the real local property that was rated was of a very much simpler kind than it is in the more complex civilisation with which we are faced at present. The principle that there are certain matters paid for by the nation as a whole, and certain other matters which are local interests and should be paid for by the local wealth, had in the first instance a great deal to recommend it, and still remains of considerable force.
But the rating system has been overlain with a very large number of patches, and changes, and modifications, which have made its complexities far greater than they were at the beginning, apart from the fact that there is the overspill of interests from one area to another, and a change in the character of the wealth which is proposed to be rated for the purpose of obtaining resources for local development. That was so, and it was quite bad enough, until some 15 years ago, when the present Prime Minister introduced a further considerable complication into our rating system, by relieving a large part of the rates of certain valuable undertakings in certain areas, thereby placing upon what was left of the wealth of the locality, a very much heavier burden, in proportion, of rates. In order to compensate local authorities for that, he instituted a form of block relief, which has caused rating authorities to be faced with problems of arithmetic as well as problems of rating proper. On the top of all that, we have this notional rating of public utilities and the method by which the hydro-electric industry has been rated, as compared with another form of electricity-producing concerns, which are based upon coal or some other means. We have, therefore, complication piled on complication, notion piled on notion, and patches and changes piled on the patches and changes that we had before.
Faced with all that difficulty and complication, what are the facts which this proposal endeavours to meet? I think they are that this industry, which is designed for the benefit of the community so that it may take advantage of the natural resources of the country, is faced with exceptionally heavy rating if the notional methods which have been applied in the past for reaching rateable values are to be applied unchanged in its case. Therefore the McIntyre Committee has recommended, and the Secretary of State has proposed in this Bill, one of the methods which is going to give them relief in those places where their burden of rates would be greatest and where, if no relief was given, the undertaking would be unable to develop its resources in the way most beneficial to the community. I am bound to say, although I did not approach the proposals with any enthusiasm in the first instance, that the arguments to which my right hon. Friend has given voice to-day have convinced me that it is necessary to take some such steps in order to meet the position.
What is the situation of the local authorities? First, with regard to new undertakings, it is true that they are not going to get all the money they might have hoped to get, if the hydro-electric undertakings had been able to pay all the rates that it was thought they might be able to do. But in fact the net result of doing nothing to give them relief would have been that those undertakings would not have expanded, the community would not have got the benefits and the matter would have remained as it was. In those circumstances, it seems to me that, even though the local authorities are not going to get all that they had expected, it is better that they should get something in the development of their resources than that they should be left where they were. Therefore, I think that the local authorities, rather reluctantly and with a certain feeling of disappointment, are realising that they cannot hold out against the proposals of the Bill.
With regard to the question of the undertakings already in existence, they are safeguarded in these proposals against immediate loss. It is true that up to a point they are safeguarded so far as the future is concerned, because the undertakings, as I understand, only get the reduction when they have created new works which have brought into rateable value new properties


for the benefit of the local authority. That seems to me only a partial explanation, because the local authority has presumably to a certain extent to incur new charges in consequence of the new rateable value. To that extent I do not think the local authorities will be quite as well off as some people suggest.
At the same time, we come back, even in that case, to the original proposition. If the resources of hydro-electric power are to be developed, they can only be developed provided they show a reasonable return. If the old basis of rating, unameliorated, were to stand, development would be very slow because it would be too expensive; or, if it were more rapid, the charges that electric authorities would have to impose would be so high as to be of little benefit to the community. Therefore, I am bound to say that I have come to the conclusion that the proposals embodied in this Bill ought to be supported. Although local authorities may feel disappointed, very naturally, and although their financial difficulties will not be cured, I think that we must wait for questions of local government reform and readjustment of the burdens between the local and national taxation, a subject, I understand, which will be discussed to-morrow, before they can get all they want in that particular. I feel, therefore, that, in view of the existing facts, we cannot oppose this Bill as it stands.

4.48 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I always think that it appears somewhat ungracious to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I must confess that I am somewhat disappointed with this Bill. When I recall the Debate on the Second Reading of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Bill what comes clearly to my mind is the complaint made by numerous hon. Members about the burdens which their constituents had to bear, owing to the high cost of electricity. They pointed out that one of the immediate ways by which that charge might be lessened, at least to a certain extent, would be by the removal of the unfair rating burdens which hydro-electric undertakings had to bear. It was on that point, if I remember rightly, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State informed the House that he had appointed a committee of inquiry. What we were really

asking for was a reduction in the cost of electricity to the people of the country. It seems to me that under this Bill we are not to get it. We are to get something which is very different. This Bill, so far as I can understand it, really provides a subsidy for the uneconomic areas of the country, at the expense of the ratepayers and the consumers of electricity in other parts of the country. That is a different thing altogether.
I have listened to my right hon. Friend's explanation, and I have read this Bill without understanding very much about it. I do not think there are many Members sufficiently versed in the technical matters concerned to understand the Bill, unless they went through a course of about a month with experts on the subject. Clause I seemed to me to be perfectly clear and straightforward. Having read it, I turned to the Explanatory Memorandum and said, "Thank goodness, I am right for once." Then I began to inquire into it, because it all seemed to be too simple. Why should the assessor be instructed in the Bill to value the undertaking? It seemed to me that that would be his duty in any case. What I have gathered is that this Clause sails straight through the Land Valuation Act of 1854 and applies a completely different principle. It really means that the undertaking, not having contiguous land and heritages, is to be valued as a whole, and not station by station, as other undertakings have to be.
I will try to explain what occurs under this scheme, and for that purpose I will give an example. Let us suppose that the Hydro-Electric Board sets up four new stations in remote parts of Scotland, where they will be unremunerative, and that each of them makes a loss of £10,000 a year. The Board then sets up another station in a populous area, which makes a profit of £100,000. Under the law as it exists, these four remote stations, having made a loss, will not provide any rateable value to the local authorities within whose area they are. But the station making a profit would produce £100,000 of rateable value in its area. Under this Bill, a deduction is made from the profit-making station of the losses that have occurred on the other stations. The rateable value is, therefore, reduced to £60,000. It. goes further than that, because that rateable value has to be spread


over the five stations in proportion to the capital which each of them bears to the whole. Suppose that each of these stations in the remote areas is one-tenth of the capital of the whole, you then have to deduct another £24,000 from the £60,000, so that, where there was a rateable value under the present law of £100,000, there will be a value of only £36,000 under this Bill.

Mr. Snaddon: In Perthshire a major scheme is contemplated, and does my hon. and gallant Friend's point mean that if it makes a profit of £100,000 it will have to subsidise, in rates, unprofitable schemes in Argyllshire? If that is so, it seems rather unjust.

Commander Galbraith: If a profit-making concern which makes £100,000 is in Perthshire, the local authority will receive a rateable value of only £36,000 under this Bill. The four remote stations have no rateable value whatever as the law stands at present, but under this scheme they will have a rateable value of £6,000 each. It is obvious that the populous areas will have to subsidise the remote areas. That may be all right, and it may be the policy of my right hon. Friend, as I gather it is, but, if so, we should have it explained to us and the people who are supplying the money should know that they are doing it.
Another point about this is that it postpones the relief which is to be given to the existing undertakings. That is obvious from what I have already said. We cannot anticipate that any of these new works will be on the valuation roll before 1949. I am told that at the present time, and for years past, there has been a steady increase in valuations of hydro-electric undertakings. That increase will continue until 1949. In view of what has been said by the Cooper Committee and by the McIntyre Committee cannot we now say that no increase in valuations should be allowed to hydro-electric undertakings until such time as relief comes along? My right hon. Friend has told us that the McIntyre Committee placed three proposals before him. The first was absolutely straightforward, and everyone could understand what it meant. It was to make another deduction of so much per cent. from the net annual value. I cannot understand, even from my right hon. Friend's explanation, why that recom-

mendation was not accepted. It could have been applied without any difficulty or trouble, and it would, if the Committee had only put in 35 per cent. instead of 25, have brought the hydro-electric stations into line with the steam stations, which is what we are asking for.
Instead of that, my right hon. Friend has chosen the third alternative, which is one that none of us can understand. It is so complicated and difficult, and even technical electrical experts cannot understand why certain things which are introduced should be there. The first alternative would have given immediate relief to all consumers of electricity. In Committee some of us may feel inclined to ask for the substitution of the first alternative for the one which my right hon. Friend has chosen.
I would like to refer to Clause 5, to which my right hon. Friend paid considerable attention. I really do not think that that Clause is necessary, because, already, development and maximum prices are controlled by Statute and Order, and the rates which are charged have to be related to the economic conditions. It is a ridiculous provision, and this is how it works. The concern gets relief to the extent of £20,000. Immediately the Inland Revenue authorities assess the undertaking for tax on that additional £20,000. With Income Tax at 10s., the £20,000 is reduced to £10,000, yet, according to this Bill, £20,000 has to be spent by the concern on certain improvements. There is an even more laughable feature than that, because, if the £20,000 comes on top of the E.P.T. standard, the whole lot goes away in tax, so that the £20,000 will not exist for the undertaking to spend as the money has already been taken by the Government. That is a little bit sweeping. I have expressed certain views on the Bill. It is, far too complicated a Measure as it stands. The alternative that my right hon. Friend has chosen is unfortunate, because it does not give immediate relief, is difficult to understand and will create a great deal of work on the assessment.

5.0 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I beg to move, to leave out "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add "upon this day six months."
It is a little unusual for an English Member to take part in a Debate on a Bill


which apparently relates entirely to Scotland, but in this case the Bill contains principles which are very important in their general significance, and I think that those principles must be challenged the first time they are introduced. I must differ a little from my hon. and gallant Friend who has just spoken. I think the Bill ought to be called "The Glasgow and Edinburgh Endowment Bill." The proposals of the Caledonian Power Bill were twice rejected by this House. Both that Bill and the Grampians Power Bill were rejected, because they wanted to establish an electro-chemical industry in association with their hydro-electric plant. That scheme would have given those plants the ideal thing, a steady load in relation to the electrical demand. That would have been a situation in which all the machinery of this Bill would have been unnecessary. How rates fall upon a hydro-electric plant depends very much upon whether the plant is fully loaded or not. The House rejected those proposals. The House said that, in a glen which nobody ever went to see, works must not be put up unless under the auspices of the Secretary of State for Scotland, when the amenities ceased to be important. Under the Bill, the rates which will be paid out will reduce the price of current, and the bulk of it will be fed into the grid to be consumed by some of the gentlemen of Edinburgh and Glasgow. That is why the Bill is getting great support from hon. Members who represent those two great cities.
We can all agree about two things, one of which is that the Secretary of State made a very good, lucid speech, explaining the difficult and abstruse matter it contains, and the other is that the Bill is very difficult reading. I am not assuming that my Amendment will be carried and I am not very anxious that we should divide on it, but when we get into Committee we shall have to consider some of the matters in this Bill very carefully.
I do not know whether hon. Members realise how unsatisfactory is the whole system of rating of public utilities. When I was connected with the electrical supply industry—have not been connected with it now for some three years—I studied very carefully how it worked out. I considered water, gas and electricity, and I compared the burden of rates they had

to bear in relation to the value of their product with the similar circumstances of ordinary productive industry. I cannot, at the moment, lay my hands on the particular memorandum, but my memory of it is that, roughly speaking, in the case of a hydro undertaking, which had no electricity attached to it, in other words, purely a water undertaking, the rate burden was about 36 times as great in relation to output as it was in productive industry as a whole; by which I mean that part of industry which comes under the survey of the Census of Production. In the case of gas, I think it was about 25 times, and in the case of electricity about 20 times. The whole system of rating of public utilities has made the prices much higher. If we are to introduce this system that new works are to be better treated than existing works—because that is what the Bill means—

Mr. Johnston: indicated dissent.

Sir H. Williams: Oh, yes. Let us be quite frank about it. There is not the slightest reason why the Metropolitan Water Board, which is promoting a Bill in this Session of Parliament to enable it to construct three reservoirs, should not come forward and say, having regard to the treatment given to this hydro-electric board, that they do not see why they should be treated any worse than this hydro-electric undertaking. Why is a hydro-electric system worse off, on the average, than a steam system? It is because the bulk of the wages of the undertaking are spent in connection with its construction. In the case of a steam station, the maintenance wages, which are much higher on running the plant, include coal miners' wages. Apparently there is a greater profit in relation to output because the revenue is calculated before meeting capital charges, which are so much higher with a hydro-electric undertaking than with a steam undertaking. As long as it is rated on a revenue basis they have to pay much more in rates. I am not clear whether the Bill does not go right away from the revenue basis. I think it does. When, in Clause 1, the assessor is told to fix the value, I presume he fixes the value on the basis of what a willing tenant would give to a willing landlord, but as he cannot find him, he does it by assuming a rate of interest on capital.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): On the revenue principle.

Sir H. Williams: How can there be a revenue principle before the undertaking has started? How assess the revenue when there has been no revenue? The first brick has not been laid—or whatever is laid when building hydro-electric undertakings in Scotland. Perhaps this matter will be explained to us, and perhaps I shall then see a great light. I quite understand why a hydro-electric undertaking is worse treated than a steam undertaking, if the hydro-electric undertaking is carrying the same sort of load as the steam undertaking. Give a hydro-electric undertaking a good, steady load all round the clock, perhaps by having an electro-chemical works, and then one will be able to get rid of the rating difficulties and this Bill will be unnecessary. It is the denial of the appropriate kind of load which, I think, has brought about a great deal of the trouble.
I think I know why the Secretary of State has chosen method C. What people have not had, they do not miss. He is not proposing to take away any existing revenue from the local authority, and as they have never had it and are not going to get as much as they expected, they do not miss anything. It is a very ingenious political proposal. If someone brings a great scheme forward to give something to people and Parliament throws it out the people do not lose anything and we do not cause a great deal of trouble, but if people have already had benefit and then an Act of Parliament is passed to take it away, of course, people get very cross. Therefore, the Secretary of State is going to say to all the existing undertakers—and this has nothing to do with the issue of private enterprise as against municipal enterprise, because if there are any municipally-owned hydro-electric undertakings, and I do not think there are, they will be placed in the same disadvantageous situation under the Bill as those which are privately owned—

Mr. Woodburn: In Inverness there is one.

Sir H. Williams: I was not aware that Inverness had one, but if so it will be prejudiced in the same way as the private undertakings. This is not an issue between private enterprise and municipal

enterprise. The issue is whether this child of the Secretary of State, the Hydro-Electric Board, is to have a privilege over all other similar works and to get this rating concession whereas the Grampians and, I think, the Galloway Power Company—I think those were the two main undertakings in Scotland—will only get it in connection with any new works. As those companies have harnessed a very large proportion of the possible water power in their areas they are not likely to get a great deal of advantage under the Bill. The advantage will go to the people who are developing water power which has not yet been developed, and the bulk of it is in the area of the Scottish Hydro-Electric Board.
Therefore, it is clear that this body will be in a privileged position. That has been thought necessary, because otherwise it might not make too good a showing when it gets going. Therefore it is desired to have this new form, which is neither Socialism nor private enterprise—I do not know what to call it. I could call it by a name which is in the English dictionary but which is not used in Parliament. I will not use it; it would offend the religious susceptibilities of my hon. Friend. Here is a discrimination in favour of one method of generating electricity—not one technical method but a political method, against other methods. I think this principle is so dangerous that it ought to be challenged, because if this Bill becomes law then in future any waterworks undertaking will have a perfectly valid reason for coming forward with similar demands. As I say, the Metropolitan Water Board are to spend some millions on constructing new works in Middlesex, and they will have as good a case for this concession as a hydro-electric board. It was because I thought this principle was so dangerous that it ought to be challenged at the earliest possible moment, that I decided to move this Amendment.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I listened attentively to the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment, and I listened with even more attention to his remark about beneficiaries, but I do not see that Glasgow and Edinburgh will be beneficiaries so far as the Measure is concerned. The Bill does not fill me with any great measure of enthusiasm, but as the hon. Gentleman proceeded with his


speech I began to think that possibly the Bill might be a little more helpful to the people of Scotland than I had previously surmised. Also, when I listened to the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) I thought it doubtful whether he was right in his reading of the Bill. He said that all installations were to be lumped together, but I do not read the Bill like that. I think all these cases will be taken by themselves, and that it will depend on the cost of the installation as to its position with regard to its rateable value in each place. That is how I read the Bill. Unless the hon. and gallant Member refers to the provision in Clause 1 I cannot see how he arrives at his interpretation of the Bill.

Commander Galbraith: I put the case so that we could have an authoritative reply from the Lord Advocate. That is my reading of the Bill. If I am wrong I hope that the Lord Advocate will correct me.

Mr. Stephen: I do not see how Clause 1 lays down what the rateable value would be in, say, one town in Scotland in relation to part of a concern. The Lord Advocate will be able to advise us on that point. The next part of the argument is that the old undertakings are, by this Measure, to be put in a worse position than the new undertakings, because they have had to put down their installations at a certain expenditure, which is given a certain rateable value, and they have had to pay rates on them. In the future they will be put on the same basis as new undertakings. They are to be in exactly the same position, because the reduction in rateable value is something which, in every case, I take it, is to be passed on in the form of cheaper current for the consumer. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), or the hon. Member for Pollok, said he did not see how the old undertaking would get any real advantage under Clause 5, because there would he Income Tax on this measure of relief. But that will not be so, because the amount of relief obtained would be spent in carrying on the business of the undertaking, so that it cannot come into the profits, and therefore cannot attract Income Tax. I was surprised that an expert on Income Tax such as my hon. Friend should have put forward such an argument.
A point has also been made that other undertakings, such as water undertakings, will be in the same position, and be just as much entitled to claim such a reduction in rates. I would meet that argument in this way. I would say that our present rating system is completely unsatisfactory. In Glasgow at the present time the rates are higher than in various other parts of the country. That is very largely because Glasgow has had a very much larger volume of unemployment, and consequently a greater expenditure in providing for the people concerned in the years gone by, because Glasgow has been the centre of the industrial system of Scotland, and when unemployment overtook the country too great a burden was put upon Glasgow. That only adds point to what has been said about the anomalies in our rating system.
One of the complaints I feel inclined to make in regard to this Bill is that instead of the Government bringing forward a real plan for the development of our country and its resources we get this miserable kind of Bill which was perhaps adequately described by the hon. Member for South Croydon when he said he did not want to use a bad word about it. The Bill is quite inadequate because the Government are not prepared to face up to the position in which we are to-day. The whole of our people have been called upon during these years to make the most tremendous sacrifices, and promises have been made that after the victory has been won we shall enter into a new period, that we shall carry the spirit of self-sacrifice and doing what is for the common good into the new period. Then we get these miserable abortions offered to us as the heralds of the new order.
I want to see hydro-electricity developed to a large extent in Scotland. If the Government feel that this Measure will help in the development of this industry in Scotland and bring electricity within the reach of people in the more remote parts, I shall be enthusiastic for it, but I do not believe that it will materially help the work of the Hydro-Electricity Board. I would have liked the Secretary of State for Scotland to go to the Cabinet and say that Scottish people, who had such a bad time, had made their contribution during the war, and that now they were entitled to some big measure of development, so that all


the water resources of Scotland should be used to the best advantage—a great scheme of housing and of industrial development in conjunction with hydro-electric power, based upon the control of government in Scotland by the people. That is the kind of policy that I should have thought the present Secretary of State would have brought forward. I do not think any injustice is done to those other undertakings. I read the Bill very carefully, and I was inclined to grumble at first, because I thought that there was to be more dividend provided for the profiteers, who have done so well in years gone by, but after reading Clause 5 I felt that this was a small attempt—possibly commensurate with what we may expect from the petty mind of the present Government—to help the development of Scotland.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Craik Henderson: This Bill is one which I think every Member will agree contains a principle which ought to be supported, the principle being to get rid of the discrimination between the two methods of producing electricity. The one point that one may make regarding that is that this relief comes rather belatedly. It is—I will not say suspicious, but illuminating—that, although this proposed reform has been pressed for for a very long time, nothing has been done by successive Governments until my right hon. Friend's fair-haired, blue-eyed child is born, and then we get the reform which has been urged for years. I hope that my tight hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will be able to satisfy us that this child of the Secretary of State is not getting any benefit which is not being extended to other companies that have already been carrying on hydro-electric work in Scotland. On the face of it, it would seem that there has been some discrimination. I am sure that Members of all parties would agree that there should be fair play between existing companies and the new company which is the product of my right hon. Friend. It seems that, under Clauses 1 and 5, there is discrimination, and I hope that the Lord Advocate will deal with the point.
Under Clause 1, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) has said, and as I read it, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric scheme has a preference over the

others. As my hon. and gallant Friend has explained, even though there are four or five different installations of the Board they are all treated as one, and there is a considerable saving of rates, as compared with private enterprise schemes, which would be assessed on the separate installations unless—which generally is not the case—they happened to be continuous lands or heritages, in more than one parish county or burgh. Only if that condition is fulfilled are they entitled to apply to the sheriff and to be assessed as a unum quid for rates. That is discrimination, because, supposing that, later on, one of those enterprises was to start a new installation not continuous with the existing installation, it would be separately assessed, and I believe some of the existing installation are not treated as a unum quid. I think it would be the wish of the House that all should be treated on an equality. The other discrimination is made under Clause 5, where it is provided that the benefit of any saving on the rates is to be passed on to the consumers or used for the development of distribution, except in the case of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. There may be some reason for this provision. If so, I should be very glad to learn that there was no real discrimination. But, on the face of it, it looks as if in the case of the existing companies, any saving must under the Bill be passed on to the consumers or expended on the undertaking, while in the case of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board there is no such provision.
There is another point which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok raised, which, on the face of it, seems rather remarkable. These private concerns, where they obtain a saving, are bound to pass it on, and it is the sum that they save which is passed on. But there may be Excess Profits Tax. If the amount is all taken by the State, are they to pass on what the State has already taken? One would think, too, that these concerns would be liable to taxation at 10s. in the £. Are they to pass on 20s. in the £, when the State has already taken 10s.? I am sure nobody in the House would want that to happen, but that is what would appear to happen. This Bill, on the face of it, discriminates unfairly between the new hydro-electric company and the older companies.
I hope that we have misread the Bill, but, if it does, then obviously it must be put right when we come to the Committee stage. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will be able to explain away these discrepancies. I would also ask him whether, in the McIntyre Report, there was any suggestion in favour of the provisions now contained in Clauses 1 to 5. So far as I remember, there was not. If so, why were they inserted in this Bill?
I hope this Bill will help to develop hydro-electric schemes in Scotland. I am very anxious to see electricity produced for Scotland cheaply and efficiently. We want to see it extended, because I believe it would do much for Scotland, but we do not want to see it done by discriminating between the child of the Government and the ordinary hydro-electric company.

5.31 p.m.

Sir Arnold Gridley: I disagree with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), who moved that the Bill be read a Second time on this day six months. I think there is a case for this Bill, because anyone of us who knows anything about hydro-electric schemes, knows full well that they invariably start under the one great disadvantage, that, considering the generating area of the scheme, the capital outlay involved is usually twice or three times, and sometimes three-and-a-half times, as much as would be the case with a corresponding thermal station. Therefore, it is right that there should be, at long last, some relief to rates in order to counteract that disadvantage.
What, however, one does object to in this Bill is the discrimination between the treatment to be meted out to this new enterprise and that of the existing enterprises, be they municipally owned or conducted under the auspices of private enterprise. I see no reason why they should not be treated the same, because, if relief is to be given to an existing undertaking, shareholders, directors and others cannot benefit by one penny piece. The savings effected have to be passed on, either to the customers by reduced prices, or by extending the distribution system, which, presumably, will mean extensions into areas not already served, Therefore, whatever our political views may be, no political issue seems to arise there. But there

are Clauses to which, on principle, one is entitled to take serious objection. All I want to do is to ask my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate this question. They will possibly remember that, when we were considering the Bill which established this Hydro-Electric Board, we got together in consultation with the Ministers, at no disadvantage to them, to us or to the Bill. Would they be good enough to undertake, between now and the Committee stage, to confer, as before, with some of us who, I think, may rightly claim to know something about these enterprises, having been in them for most of our lives, and see if, together, we cannot hammer out improvements that will make the Bill more acceptable?

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I beg to subscribe to the formula that I do not understand the Bill. It seems to me that those hon. Members who have not said that, have said that they hope they have misread it, in the hope of finding something that was suitable to their own angle or interest. May I also suggest that, in addition to referring to hon. Members as "hon. and learned," we might also introduce the phrase "hon. and technical Member" as well for those who do understand Bills like this? The Secretary of State made a very persuasive and lucid case for the Bill. But I cannot say that all of us on this side are in complete agreement with him. The situation seems to be something like that described in the epitaph which a negro soldier chose for himself:
Here lies a black man who died fighting a yellow man to save a white man.
Here you have a local authority being automatically deprived of newly-created rating values by the central Government in order, ultimately, to subsidise private interests. For even if you only give your relief of rating to improve a distributing system, you still increase the capital assets of the private company concerned. There is no doubt that, in essence, setting aside all the questions of "technical difficulty," the effect of this Bill in these areas is going to be that a subsidy is provided in the form of rate relief at the expense of the local ratepayers, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not had more difficulty with the county councils involved


in the Northern areas in respect of this. Taking the long view, it can be said in favour of the Bill that it may, ultimately, help to create new wealth by making local raw resources into economic assets in these areas, and it may also induce an undertaking to use the rate relief to improve their works and distributing service, even if it is mainly for their own profit, and not the public's. We are assured, though it is not specifically stated in the Bill, that the undertakings which benefit under this Bill will pass a part, at least, of that benefit to the consumers in the way of cheaper supplies. But there is nothing very specific in the Bill on that point. When you pass on a derating benefit in that way, it does not necessarily mean that you are giving a cheaper public supply; and experience in the past has been that where you have had this rating relief, the consumers have benefited only up to a point, though not by very much in some areas.
I think the way to subsidise the better working of what ought to be a national service, if you are going to do it at all, is by way of a national subsidy and not at the expense of an already heavily derated local authority. It is time we made provision for the small communities, the farms and out-of-the-way places which are now served most inadequately, if they are really served at all, and which, apparently, are not all to be covered by the Hydro-Electric Board's enterprises. I agree that existing undertakings will only be relieved of rates in direct proportion to new rateable construction in those areas, or in proportion as they extend these, or their old, undertakings. Surely, we ought not to have to give a bribe at the local people's expense in order to attract these undertakings and equate their treatment for private benefit. I do not see why the Treasury, if it is going to help at all here, should not be more direct with its subvention to private enterprise, which is what, quite frankly, this proposal has to be acknowledged as meaning. It is an ugly method to subsidise at the expense of the local rates.
There is no compensation provided in the Bill for local authorities, for new services and extensions of services which must be provided by them from local rates when new works come into their areas. You have police protection, fire service, and, possibly, an extension of the

water and other services, which will inevitably have to be extended when a new generating plant and ancillary works come into the area or an old one is extended. What benefits are necessarily to come from the Bill? An improved distribution system at the expense of a relief in rates, that is at the expense of all new potential rateable values as far as electrical undertakings or an extension of existing undertakings are concerned. Not necessarily a much cheaper supply. It may be that the main benefits under the Bill will accrue not to the area in which these works exist, or into which the new works come, but to the other counties and areas round about. This can easily happen in various districts in the North of Scotland, so that no public benefit necessarily comes to the local people at all, and even that new capital wealth which is created may be used to export by improved methods and subsidies the consumer product—the power and electricity—from that locality almost altogether. It may have no important local rateable value and actually no amenity value at all to the people in the locality.
The only consolation offered by the Secretary of State and those who speak for the Bill is that we do not actually start to penalise the local authority until then new values have been created. At best, that means that, in relation to hydro-electrical supply, the area of rateable value is not going to be extended for several years, at least. That is not an unfair interpretation to put upon it. This Bill introduces, or aggravates, a very unfortunate state of affairs in areas which are already de-rated. In places like Inverness-shire, Argyllshire, and Ross-shire, you have tremendous areas agriculturally de-rated. It is time that we spoke up for the small places. I have a constituency consisting entirely of small places. When we talk about getting a public water supply, a new road, a pier or harbour, they immediately relate it to the local rateable value and say that the local rateable value would not justify spending money on it. They say that a rate of a penny or a shilling or even a pound would only produce a few pence, shillings, or pounds, respectively; and, therefore, it would not be worth while undertaking such expenditure in the form of grants from national funds.
The reason, to a large extent, for the de-population of these areas is the fact


that almost all necessary proposed improvements are related to the local rateable value. The smaller the place, the less the rateable value and the less finance you can raise locally; and, therefore, the less you receive from the National Government by way of grants. The vicious circle is thus completed. Larger places elsewhere with higher rateable values are able to offer attractions and amenities, and the people leave the small places, and that is largely the reason for the continuing, rapid de-population of the small places. They are always hunting in these counties for new rateable value; they expect to benefit from new industries. The establishment of an electrical supply industry or any other industry should increase not only the economic wealth, but the rateable value of the county and would enable improvements to take place in the life of the people in the small communities. When they realise what the Bill means they will feel very sore about it. I am surprised that some of our county councils are not making a bigger row about it. It is time that we spoke our minds clearly on this issue.
I am not at one with the Secretary of State on this issue of subsidising, directly or indirectly, wholly or in part, these interests. It is not the real way of dealing with electrical supply in this country. If you want to subsidise an industry which is inefficient, or which has some other reason for requiring a subsidy, if you are going to do it by Statute, you should do it from the central funds and not at the expense of actual rateable values or potential future rateable values of these small areas, which cannot finance themselves and are inadequately financed by the Treasury. I am not arguing for people who vote against paying a ½d. or a 1d. on the rates for locally financed benefits. It is the principle of compelling local authorities by central government statutes to accept losses in their potential rateable values or present values and at the same time asking them to undertake the many tremendous new tasks of reconstruction at heavy local cost, at the same time. I hope that, during the Committee stage, it will be possible to modify the Bill; though I rather doubt it. I hope that some sort of modification will take place, to ensure that the local people, and the smaller communities especially, get some benefit

in cheaper electric power at least out of this handout of their newly created rateable values to private firms; and out of the reliefs given to the existing plants and generating stations in their own areas.

5.47 p.m.

Major McCallum: I rise with some trepidation to intervene in this Debate because we have listened to a number of great technical experts on hydro-electricity, on rating, and all the problems connected with this Bill, and I have come here not as the poor lone wolf, but as the poor lone lamb, to represent the man in the street, or rather the man in the glen, who hopes one day to benefit from the Bill and be able to turn on a switch and have some electric light in his cottage or farm or house. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) has said that his local authority had not welcomed this Bill as wholeheartedly as I would like. I know from conversation with my own local authority that they are fully supporting the right hon. Gentleman, and hope that the Bill will go through and that everything will be done to facilitate the development of hydro-electricity in the North of Scotland area.
I represent an area which is slightly different from that represented by my hon. Friend in that we have already in some parts of Argyllshire the principal existing undertaking—the Grampian Company—while the Northern part of the county comes under this North of Scotland Board. Whatever the arguments may be against giving favours to existing undertakings and to newcomers, all I can say is that, whether it is the threat of the arrival of a newcomer or not, the existing undertakers' rates charged to the consumer have already gone down. I think that that is a very good move. We sincerely trust that the development of hydro-electricity will be facilitated by this Bill, and that the time will be very near when the remote areas—the people in the glens, on the West coast, and in the Islands—will be able to benefit from this great scheme which was promoted by the right hon. Gentleman.
We had one of these schemes very much before public opinion the other day when a public inquiry was held into the Loch Sloy scheme. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) is not here at the moment, because I must confess that


the evidence put forward by Dumbartonshire at that inquiry caused tremendous astonishment to people in the neighbouring areas. That the local authority of Dumbartonshire should be willing to prevent the development of amenities for the Highlanders to-day, in case in 50 years' time they might require more water for the people of Dumbartonshire, really struck us as being a little extraordinary. Although the constituency I represent may be one of those which, for a long time, will not be benefiting from any access of rating value, still we do hope that in years to come the introduction of hydro-electricity to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland will bring that influx of new wealth and new industries of which my hon. Friend was speaking just now, and a revival of agriculture and so increase in many ways the rateable value of the county, apart from the hydro-electric schemes.
It is for that reason that I feel opposition has not been expressed to-day, for every hon. Member who has spoken so far has expressed a desire that the development of hydro-electricity for Scotland should go ahead, but it is not so with the general public. I am sure my hon. Friends from north of the Border will have read in our own Scottish Press a large number of letters about throwing away the Highlanders birthright, throwing away the life of the country. There have been all kinds of letters condemning the original scheme as being something that ought never to have been brought forth. I can only say that it is a most extraordinary thing, and I have studied all that correspondence for some time, that in connection with the original scheme and in connection with this Bill practically every letter—

Mr. J. J. Davidson: What does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean by "the original scheme"? Does he mean the original scheme placed in this House by private organisations?

Major McCallum: No, I am referring to the actual North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Act. This is another Bill to help it along. The opposition North of the Border to the whole scheme has been such that it has caused a great deal of wonder throughout the Highlands, for the letters were mostly written by people, I am sorry to say, in Glasgow, Edinburgh or Perth. I would like to draw the attention of hon.

Members to the fact that each of those people, when they have sat down to write their letters during the winter months, have probably switched on their electric light. All we ask for in the Highlands is the right and the facility to be able to walk into a room and also turn on an electric light, which is what we cannot do now. Therefore, I hope that people outside this House will pay some little attention to the enthusiasm and the backing that the scheme is getting from all Members of this House, and not try to retard the progress of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland by their unwarranted and entirely selfish opposition to the whole scheme.

Mr. M. MacMillan: Perhaps I may take up that point. I do not think that any Member has expressed unqualified approval of the Bill.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Douglas: I hope my Scottish colleagues will forgive my intrusion in this Debate, but it raises principles which might easily receive a very large extension to other subjects of rating, because what we are dealing with here is a specimen of a very large class of undertakings which are valued on what is called the revenue or profits basis, including not only electricity undertakings but gas, water, railways and others. This Bill is described as a Measure for the purpose of amending the law of valuation in Scotland, but I think it is clear that it ought more properly to be described as a Measure for subsidising future hydro-electric undertakings in Scotland, and the present ones as they are extended by new works. There may be an argument in favour of that. All I say about it is that if a subsidy is to be granted, it ought to be granted in an open and overt fashion and subject to the control of Parliament, so that it can be voted annually, and not become, as this is, a fixed and perpetual charge which, in fact, is levied at the expense of other ratepayers.
The argument upon which this proposal has been founded is a fallacy, The Cooper Committee was originally responsible for it in its suggestion that hydro-electric undertakings were treated less favourably for rating purposes than other electricity undertakings, and the basis for that argument was that in computing the net revenues of other undertakings the cost of coal was deducted. Naturally it


is, as the cost of wages and all other working expenses are deducted before ascertaining from the gross revenues what are the net revenues, but that comparison is not the point. The law of rating as it exists at present in England and in Scotland is that rates are based upon land together with all the buildings and constructions and improvements which are fixed to the land, and all these undertakings, valued on the profits or revenue principle, are valued according to the net profits or net receipts after deducting working expenses.
If this argument is pushed to its extreme, some day the railway companies will come down to this House and, because they have embarked a very large amount of fixed capital in the permanent way, rails, and so on, and the road transport or air transport undertakings have not embarked a corresponding amount of fixed capital attached to land in their undertakings, will claim that they should be treated in this fashion and their valuations reduced. If that principle goes on, we shall have an enormous amount of differential rating taking place. The local authorities have for a long time been disillusioned as to the effects of the de-rating which was introduced in 1929. It has caused further discriminations and inequalities in the way in which the rate burden falls, and the same thing will happen if the principle introduced here receives any further extension.
It is not true that electricity undertakings, whether hydro-electric or steam, are treated unfairly or harshly in the matter of rating. The McIntyre Committee have, unfortunately, not given us details of the calculations which were put before them, but I suggest that if they were examined it would probably be found that whereas other properties which are rated in the normal fashion may be rated on 5 per cent. of the capital value of the heritage, in the case of these undertakings they are rated on only about half of that amount, owing to the deductions which are made in calculating the rateable value. First, there is a deduction of 15 per cent. from the tenant's capital—a very generous return. Then there is a deduction of 20 per cent. of the total of the net revenue. That is also a generous return. In addition, there is a further reduction of 30 per cent. under the Rating (Scotland) Act,

1926. It is, therefore, not true that electricity undertakings of either kind are badly treated under the rating laws that exist at present. Neither is it true that hydro-electric undertakings are unfairly dealt with as compared with steam undertakings, because these undertakings are not competitive with one another. They have defined areas in which they are the sole suppliers, in which they are monopolists. The element of competition is entirely absent, and thus there can be no ground for the suggestion that one is being unfairly treated as against the other. That would be quite a good argument in the case of undertakings which are competitive in their nature, but these undertakings are monopolist.
On those grounds I sincerely hope that an extension of this principle will not be countenanced. It is true that the whole law of rating, both in Scotland and England, now requires examination. It is not only in the case of electricity undertakings that rates are imposed on capital expenditure; they are imposed on the building of houses, shops, warehouses and upon all kinds of activities which, on their merits are as deserving of consideration as electricity undertakings. If it is desirable to encourage production and industry by the relief of rates on capital expenditure which attaches to a heritage it ought to be done all round, and not in this piecemeal fashion, which emphasises the inequality between one heritage and another.

6.5 p.m.

Captain W. T. Shaw: The Lord Advocate described the last Bill we were discussing as "unlovable". I am not of a sufficiently amorous disposition to describe this Bill in that way; if I were asked to describe it, I should say that it was repugnant. The only good thing about it, compared with the other Bill, is that it is so much shorter. It is not often we have in this House, when discussing Scottish Bills, the attendance and help of English Members. I imagine that the draftsman intended to pay a compliment to the intelligence of Scottish Members when he prepared this Bill, because it is one of the most difficult Measures ever introduced into this House. The Secretary of State has been congratulated on his exposition of it, but I did not hear much about it while I was listening to him He spoke mostly about


the Cooper and McIntyre Reports. I can only think that the draftsman of this Bill must have been a Scot who, after attending a Burns dinner, tossed it off, feeling that his fellow countrymen could grasp, swallow and digest anything. But by faculties have been overrated in this matter, because I, for one, find this Bill difficult to understand. The calculations are difficult to understand.
But the easiest way to deal with this matter is to deal with concrete cases. Within the last week the Secretary of State for Scotland has published reports dealing with two schemes—one dealing with the Gairloch, the other with the Tommel-Garry project. I invite the Lord Advocate to tell us exactly how this Bill will affect rating values in the Pitlochrie area scheme. I ask him to say how much less the rateable value will be on this Perthshire scheme as compared with what it would be if this Bill did not reach the Statute Book. We have been told that, in certain areas, there will be schemes that will be unremunerative, and that the losses of those schemes will be borne by other schemes. How much is it anticipated will be deducted on account of other schemes, so as to reduce the rateable value of the County of Perth scheme? A great deal of electricity is to be taken out of the county; where it is to be developed? It may go to West Stirling, Kirkintilloch, Glasgow or Edinburgh. There will be great development there, a lot of increased wealth and rateable value. Are they to contribute anything to the relief of ratepayers in the county of Argyll?
We want answers to these questions. This Bill would never have been introduced if it had not been for the hydro-electric scheme. This scheme is for the benefit of the Board so that they can say, "Look how cheaply we can give you electricity as compared with other people," without mentioning that the cheap rates are due to the Board getting relief from rates. These schemes are not going to be financed under any guarantee of the Government. People in Pitlochrie district will subsidise people in Argyllshire. It is a new form of rating. I agree with the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. MacMillan) that these subsidies should come out of national funds. I can see that there is room for very great

amendment when the Bill is considered in Committee.

6.10 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. S. C. Reid): Until a few moments ago I think all speakers had agreed that there was in equity an overwhelming case for relief to hydro-electric undertakings as compared with steam stations. Even the two hon. Members who moved and seconded the rejection did so on other grounds altogether—that there was discrimination and that kind of thing—but the last one or two speakers have suggested that there is no ground in justice for any relief at all. I do not think one should argue that matter at this hour. At least three Committees, two of which were set up for the purpose, have reported unanimously that relief was justified in equity, and all those who have spoken to-day who have a close connection with the electrical industry have taken the same view, and against that almost unanimous testimony I would suggest that those who take a different view may perhaps not prevail. Let me approach the matter from the point of view that there is in justice a case for relief. The last Committee put the disparity at two to one. Others have put it higher than that. This relief is less than sufficient to meet a disparity of two to one. Therefore, it is well within the acknowledged equities of the situation.
But it is the method of giving the relief rather than the relief itself which is questioned. Therefore, I think it would be well if I tried, by means of some concrete example, to show how the system in the Bill will work out. I am not sure whether I am doing an injustice to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), but I thought he did not appreciate that ultimately, and sooner rather than later, all existing works will share in the concession. I thought he was rather under the impression that the old works never get the concession at all. If that had been the case there would indeed have been discrimination and his attack would have been justified. But that is not so.
What happens is this. I take Perthshire as an example to illustrate how this Bill is going to work. I am told that at the moment there is in that county a rateable value of something in the neighbourhood of £85,000 per annum from hydro-electric undertakings. New works


will get the reduction under the Bill from the very beginning. If they cost more than £30 per kilowatt to put up, the rating burden is reduced, and that irrespective of what the position elsewhere in the county may be. But old works do not come in until there are some new works on to the shoulders of which you can transfer the amount of the rebate. The rebate on the existing old works in Perthshire, as far as we can estimate it, will be something short of £25,000 per annum rateable value. Therefore, the existing undertakers in Perthshire will not get their full measure of relief until there is some £25,000 of new hydro-electric works in the county. Of course, every bit of new valuation that it brought in gives to that extent relief, but the full relief requires £25,000 of new works. That is not a great deal for one single scheme. There have been in the past many schemes which have produced more than that amount of rateable value by themselves. Looking to the speed with which the hydro boards are progressing, it does not seem likely that it will be very many years before there is that £25,000 of new rateable value in the county, and there therefore is the foundation for complete relief for existing stations to the full extent provided by the Bill. Therefore, the only discrimination is that, whereas new works get their relief immediately, old works may have to wait for four, five or six years, or whatever it may be.
That, it seems to us, is not such gross discrimination as to justify the kind of attack that has been launched by one or two speakers to-day. Of course we should not have introduced even that amount of discrimination if there had not been very good reasons for it. If we were to allow immediate derating of existing hydro-electric works before there were new works which would pay the amount of the loss, existing ratepayers would have to bear the burden of rates and would have to pay to make up for the loss. Therefore it is a question whether this amount of rates—not a large sum; in the region of £7,000 or £8,000 per annum—pending the arrival of new works to pay it is to be borne by the other ratepayers or by the existing undertakings which have been bearing it for the last few years, and we think it right to let the loss lie where it is until means can be found to take it

up without imposing a burden on the other ratepayers. That is all the discrimination that there is, a postponement for a few years of complete equality between existing and new works.
Those who have moved the rejection on the ground of discrimination have rather overstated their case. It is not really anything like so bad as they seem to think it is. I do not want to overstate my case in the least. I agree that there is a little discrimination, a postponement for a year or two of full relief, but it is so small, and the reasons for it so overwhelming, that I suggest that it should be neglected.
I come next to the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith), which was on different points altogether. His speech raised a number of issues, some of which we had appreciated before and some of which perhaps we had not fully appreciated—at least I had not—and I do not think it will be doing justice to his speech to try to give him a full and complete answer to it until I have studied it in HANSARD to-morrow. Therefore, anything I say now is preliminary to a further study rather than a final answer to his questions. The first point was why, under Clause 1, we put this new body under the Assessor of Public Undertakings. There are two reasons. The first reason is that under the existing law the new Board could probably claim it in any event, but I agree that that is an arguable legal point. The second reason appears when we look to see who are already being dealt with by that Assessor in this precise way. I find that in Perthshire, in the Valuation Roll, the following appear: Dumfermline Water Works, Glasgow Corporation Water Works, Central Electricity Board and Grampian Electricity Company, all of which are being valued on this global principle. Therefore, no discrimination as between the Board and private enterprise in the electrical industry is introduced by Clause 1, because the other hydro-electric undertakers in the North of Scotland are already under the equivalent of Clause 1.

Commander Galbraith: That is because they come within the terms of the 1854 Act, but there is some doubt whether the new Board comes within its terms.

The Lard Advocate: It is not that Act; if any, it is the 1894 Act, which extends


the 1854 Act. I agree that the law is a little doubtful. I am looking at it from the wider point of view of whether there is fair play between the Board, and, say, the Grampian Company. If the Grampian Company is already under this system, it does not seem to be unfair that we should resolve the legal doubt about the Board's position, if there is one, by bringing it also under this form of valuation.

Sir H. Williams: I take it that the purpose of Clause 1 is not to do anything new, but merely to clear up a doubt?

The Lord Advocate: I did not know this was to be put as a point of major importance, and I have not really applied my mind to trying to see whether, if I had to decide the matter, I should say that the Board was or was not entitled in law to valuation by the Assessor of Public Undertakings. All I can say is that the matter is doubtful and it has been resolved in this Bill in the sense indicated in Clause 1.

Sir H. Williams: When a Clause is put into a Bill for the purpose of clearing up a doubt, is it not the custom to indicate that? Otherwise the courts will say that it must be new law.

The Lord Advocate: It is new law in one respect, because to operate the old law one would have to go through a complicated form of legal procedure. What we do here, without going through any procedure, is to say in so many words that this is the method for valuing this undertaking. That is new, I agree. It is, from one point of view, only short-circuiting procedure, but from another point of view, it reverses the existing law. It is not only removing doubts, but simplifying procedure.
The second point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend was the effect of this global valuation. I do not think the matter is quite so simple as might appear from his remarks, because one has to bear in mind that this Board is a non-profit earning body, and the revenue from one station will vary according to whether another station is or is not paying its way. I am not sure, therefore, that the calculation of my hon. and gallant Friend is entirely accurate. I agree, however, that the point is a substantial and important one, and I should prefer to have a further opportunity of studying it before I say more. He next asked why we adopt

method C. We adopt it because, apparently, the experts, who, after all, will have to handle this matter, seem to think that that is the best way. I do not think it matters very much which plan is adopted; what matters at the end of the day is the amount of relief in money. Whether it is done by the simple straightforward method of method A rather than by the more complicated method C, does not matter. The point is, we give this Board and all other undertakers relief of a certain amount, and how that is achieved is a pure matter of machinery once it is agreed that the relief is due.
A further point was made with regard to Income Tax. Again, I would like to study the matter, but my first impression is that there is no discrimination between the position of the two bodies. Take a private undertaker; suppose he uses his rebate by reducing the prices of current to his consumers, he has no larger income than he had the year before. Therefore, there is no more to tax than there was the year before. I think, therefore, that in that case, at least, the rebate does not suffer tax.

Mr. Craik Henderson: Surely the two things are not going to happen in the same year. They cannot pass the rebate on until they know what the relief is to be?

The Lord Advocate: I am not sure about that, because, as my hon. Friend will have noticed, the communication of the relief to the company for technical reasons comes in a year late, and I think that the company will be able probably to communicate the relief to their customers the same year as they get it. These are technical and small points which I will look at again. I agree that it would be unfortunate if there were a discrimination between one body and another on this matter of Income Tax, but I do not think there is. I welcome the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) that we should discuss this matter with anyone who wished to have his difficulties discussed and examined. I will certainly get into touch with him with a view to pursuing that matter.
Our discussions were extremely valuable in the course of the original Hydro-Electric Bill. I trust that we shall be able to remove mutual misunderstandings in


a discussion now. I cannot help feeling that practically all the criticisms this afternoon have been based on misunderstanding. It is certainly not the intention of the Government that there should be any discrimination in any respect apart from the small discriminations which have been pointed out. It had been our impression that no such discrimination still existed, and if it does exist we must examine the matter still further most carefully. Therefore any further consultations to clear up the misunderstanding will be most welcome.

Mr. M. MacMillan: Can the Lord Advocate possibly give us an example to show that our fears in regard to loss falling upon local authorities were not well-founded? Let me take his own example regarding new firms, and the taxation, for rateable value purposes, on the basis of £30 per kilowatt; is not that new value lost to the local authority immediately it arises? Is it not deducted for the purpose of subsidising and relieving from rates existing undertakings in the area? In the first place, as I understand it, it is merely to be deducted from the rates which otherwise would be payable, of the new firms coming in with new construction.

The Lord Advocate: There is a long passage in the Report on this matter, which I will not read at the moment, but, broadly speaking, the local authorities' position may be looked at in this way: if we do not give any concession or reduction, the local authority will levy their full rates on such undertakings as are built under those adverse financial conditions. If we put too high a tax on these undertakings a number of them will never be built at all because they would be too uneconomic, even for the North of Scotland Board. The Board must undertake a certain amount of uneconomic work if they are to pioneer in the Highlands, but they cannot go too far. If we overload with a burden of rates a particular scheme, that scheme will never come to fruition. The local authority will never get any rates for it, although it would otherwise get a very large proportion. The ratepayers will lose the amenities and developments which they would otherwise get from the scheme. On the one hand, therefore, the local authority will sometimes gain money, and on the

other hand, they will sometimes lose money, and, in addition, their ratepayers will lose amenities and developments. On balance, it is in the local as well as in the national interest that this concession should be given.

Mr. MacMillan: While thanking the Lord Advocate for that explanation, may I point out to him that I was really asking whether he agrees that the immediate point in regard to this Hydro-Electric Rating Bill is that we are fixing rigidly the rateable value of hydro-electric undertakings and that there can be no possible other rateable value created and collected locally in regard to those hydro-electric undertakings?

The Lord Advocate: Until the benefit under the Bill has been given to existing undertakers. Of course, as soon as existing undertakers get their full benefit under the Bill, and that may be after a few years only, all additional works will swell the rateable value.

Captain W. T. Shaw: How will this affect the ratepayers in the area of the Perthshire scheme?

The Lord Advocate: It is impossible to work that out now. One cannot possibly tell. It will be worked out later, but one does not know what the cost of these works per kilowatt is and until we know that we do not know what the amount of the relief will be.

Captain Shaw: Will the loss on one scheme be made up out of the profit on another?

The Lord Advocate: I do not think there will be any serious loss. I do not think that the total value of the Perthshire schemes will be diminished. It has been pointed out that a certain part of the Perthshire valuation will probably be communicated to poorer areas. It will not amount to a very large proportion.

Sir H. Williams: As there is such a vast number of questions that the Lord Advocate is not in a position to answer to-night, and as I think he ought to answer them in Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — NURSES BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment, read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — FOOD PRESERVATIVES (REGULATION)

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Order in Council dated 23rd November, 1944, made under the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 and 1940, adding Regulation 60CAA to the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, a copy of which Order was presented on 5th December, be annulled.
This is a plea for the annulment of this Regulation. The Statutory Rules and Orders Committee, in their third Report, stated that they were of opinion that the attention of the House should be drawn to this Regulation on the ground that it appeared to make some unusual or Unexpected use of the powers of the Statute under which it was made and that its form and purpose called for elucidation. It is in that spirit, and without any hostility to the Order, that I put forward this Motion.
The Public Health (Preservation of Food) Regulation, 1925, which has stood the test of some 20 years' experience, provided certain safeguards in regard to the nature and the quantities of preservatives which can be used in food. The proposed Regulation overrides that protection, and I want to know why. I want an explanation of the Regulation under two heads. First, I want to know how it is connected with the war, so as to make it properly the subject of a Defence Regulation—because, prima facie it appears to me to be ultra vires—and, secondly, I want to know why, at this stage of the war, this decision is now suddenly being taken to relax those safeguards and to allow what are admittedly excessive amounts of sulphur dioxide, borax and other preservatives to be used in food for human consumption. I, and my hon. Friends who are associated with me feel that in view of its importance, the Regulation needs elucidation on those two points. We are surprised that elucidation was not given in a note to the Order, and we await with interest what the Parliamentary Secretary may say.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Craik Henderson: I beg to second the Motion.
The particular point which my hon. Friends and I would like to elucidate is how an Order like this comes within the powers conferred by this House. I suppose it is for the efficient prosecution of the war, but we should like to know how it comes within the ambit of those powers.

6.41 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Mabane): I am obliged to my hon. Friends for giving me this opportunity to offer some explanation of this Order and for the friendly way in which the Motion has been moved and seconded. As to the first point made, by the mover, who asked why this Order is construed as being connected with the war and is not ultra vires, powers are given to make Orders necessary for the maintenance of supplies and services. The short answer on that point is that without this Order, the foodstuffs mentioned in the Order would not be available, or would not be available in such quantities. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend says, they would go bad. Another illustration is that, only a few days before war broke out, when it seemed likely that meat coming from South America would take a considerably longer time to come, we sent a message "Do not send the meat chilled, send it frozen." If we had not sent that message, we might have lost our meat. The provisions in this Order are to enable the supplies to be available in as abundant quantity as we would wish them to be.
Then my hon. Friend asked, Why at this stage of the war is it necessary for a decision of this character to be taken? He has not observed—indeed there is no reason why he should do so—that this Order, for the most part, is not new. The decisions which are indicated in this Order were not taken in 1944, but much earlier. The Order refers to meat, margarine, bacon, condensed milk, eggs, jam and dehydrated vegetables. The provisions in this Order in relation to meat, margarine, bacon and condensed milk, which are the more important commodities mentioned, were taken in 1940 and the Orders were made in 1940, so there is nothing new. What is here provided has been going on pretty well throughout the war. Certain new minor provisions


relating to eggs, jam, dehydrated vegetables and oranges are contained in the Order so that supplies may be abundant.
I should like to take some credit to the Ministry for making this Regulation. As I have said, the provisions contained in this Order, in so far as they refer to meat, margarine, bacon and condensed milk, have been in force since 1940. At that time they were made in the form of Statutory Rules and Orders against which the House could not offer a Prayer. The Ministry of Food, observing that the House was taking a greater interest in these matters, thought it wise to embody in a Consolidating Order these provisions, which had, in fact, been in force for four years, in order that by so doing the Ministry of Food should conform to what appeared to be the current wishes of the House. I think we may take credit for giving the opportunity of which the House has shown itself desirous lately, of praying against this Order. I hope this explanation will satisfy my hon. Friend that we have not misused our powers and that, indeed, we have bowed to the present temper of the House in making the Order in this way.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House why it is necessary to put sulphur-dioxide into jam? Surely if jam is properly made, it should not require any preservative other than the sugar. Would he also say why this Order does not say what is the maximum amount of these preservatives that should be put into any of these foods?

Mr. Mabane: I can only speak again by leave of the House. If it were possible to make all our jam of fresh fruit, all would be well, but a great deal of our jam has to be made of pulp, either imported pulp or plum pulp, which is produced in this country. My hon. Friend who comes from a part of the world where plums are grown in very substantial quantities, will remember that, two years ago, there was an enormous crop of plums. We either had to say "good-bye" to those plums, or preserve them against the time when they could be converted into jam. The only way to preserve them was by putting them into sulphur. There is a very curious reason why the permitted quantity should be increased. It is that recent methods of analysis have become more

perfect, and have revealed the fact that, probably, in the past, a great deal of jam that had apparently less than 40 parts per 1,000,000 of sulphur-dioxide in it, really had more. So, probably, in the past, had methods of analysis been as perfect as they now are, much jam would have been outside the Regulation made under the Food and Drugs Act. The quantities are specified in the licences, and a circular has been sent to the local authorities who are responsible for prosecuting under, or taking action under, these Regulations, informing them of the present permitted quantities.

Mr. Ralph Etherton: In view of the explanation which my right hon. Friend has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — WOMEN'S LAND ARMY

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Beechman.]

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I apologise to the House for keeping it a little longer, but I wish to make a plea on behalf of a group of citizens who richly deserve the attention, care and sympathy of this House. I want to draw to the notice of the House the conditions of service in the Women's Land Army. I have had this matter brought forcibly to ray attention during the last two or three months. We have had a spell of extraordinarily bad weather in Scotland. These girls have had to work in conditions more uncomfortable and arduous than, perhaps, at any other time in the course of the war. As a result one became flooded with complaints and criticisms from the girls, to such an extent that I thought it right to invite members of the Women's Land Army in Fife to meet me, so that they might express their grievances, as they are entitled to do, to their Member of Parliament. As the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland knows, it was a largely attended meeting. Criticism was fierce and rather pungent, and, I thought, in many respects well justified. The meeting, and the views expressed by the girls, received very wide publicity in the Scottish Press. Since then there has been a flood of letters to all the principal journals, and


it is clear that the public in Scotland feel that something should be done to take care of these girls, who are playing so fine a part in the war effort. The odd thing is that I have to make my plea to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, because his Department is responsible for the Women's Land Army.
There are three types of complaint that the Women's Land Army make—first, that their uniform, their clothes and equipment are inadequate for the work they have to do; secondly, that they are, in a sense, slighted by official and unofficial opinion in the country; and, thirdly, that they are not being provided for as are members of the other Women's Services, when their services are no longer required. All the trouble really arises out of the fact that the Women's Land Army is in a very anomalous position. It is called an army, it is uniformed, it is looked after, to some extent, by the State, it is in a special position, and the girls are subject to a measure of special control. It is, in a sense, part of the uniformed Services of the State. Yet it is in practice no more than an industrial group, doing work alongside other industrial workers on the farms. Most of the girls live in the farmers' homes and cottages, being paid a weekly wage, the same as other land workers. Therefore, they are both soldiers, or A.T.S.—whatever you like to call them—and industrial workers. The Government can scarcely escape blame for that anomalous position, because they chose the word "Army" and they put the girls into uniform. It is that anomalous position that creates so much misunderstanding and ill will. It is because of the title of the force, it is because the girls are in uniform, it is because they are recruited as a separate force, that there has been built up a psychological condition in the minds of the girls which, however one cares to explain it away, can be ignored only at the expense of the continued good will of the Land Army and at the expense of the production of food.
I gathered from my right hon. Friend, in reply to a Question, that the numbers of recruits to the Land Army are falling and that the intake is now only 50 per cent. of the number necessary at present; and when the Spring comes, and the demand for labour is greater, the 50 per cent. will drop a great deal. My right hon. Friend spoke of the low rate of

recruitment. No doubt there are many reasons for that. I am certain that one of the reasons is the unfavourable comparison which the potential recruit makes as between conditions in the Women's Land Army and in the other uniformed women's Services, such as the A.T.S., W.R.N.S., W.A.A.F.S. and so on.
I take the three points of criticism that I mentioned, and will deal first with clothes and equipment. I have already spoken about climatic conditions. I made it my business to see what these girls were doing, and I saw them standing up to the knees in mud, quite miserable, in the beet fields of Fife, wearing leather boots that sometimes were needing repair—rubber boots in a few cases—and clothed in outside garments which were quite definitely inadequate for the purpose of keeping out the wind and the rain. Altogether it was making life extremely uncomfortable. At the meeting at which the criticisms were levelled something very interesting happened. I gathered that no rubber boots were to be got in Fife. Yet, within a fortnight of the meeting, 180 pairs of rubber boots were despatched to Fife. Excellent; but I am bound to ask what happens to all the Land Girls in other areas where a similar agitation has not been made? When one realises this, one feels a little uneasy about them.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: They should get the Italian Embassy to speak for them.

Mr. Stewart: I would like an assurance from my right hon. Friend that, in every part of the country to which a supply of rubber boots ought to go to these girls it has, in fact, gone, because I am not in the least satisfied that this is so. The girls told me that they worked alongside Italian prisoners, whom my hon. Friend just mentioned, and they told remarkable stories. There was no trouble about the Italian prisoners. They had battledress, and were sometimes treated by the farmers with great respect where the girls were treated with great disrespect. It is quite natural that British girls, seeing the Italians provided with all the uniform necessary to keep out the weather, should bitterly complain that the same treatment is not advanced to them. These girls work alongside ordinary workers on the land. Anybody who knows what these professional agricultural women workers


are doing must be filled with profound respect. They are sometimes quite old women, and often middle-aged women, who are working throughout this war without any publicity or glamour or uniform, but doing an immense work that will go on, no doubt, after this war is over. I cannot speak too highly of the part they play, but even these workers, trained and brought up as they are in the business, are better looked after in this respect than the Land Girls. One of the leading market gardeners in Scotland, who must be known to my right hon. Friend, wrote me this letter:
Most of the market gardeners around here, the Edinburgh district, have supplied their women workers with Wellingtons and oilskin coats when these are available. It is extremely difficult to get workers for ordinary vegetable collection unless they have these clothes available.
The Land Girls look round and see that employers have provided this necessary equipment for their regular workers and they ask, Why is it denied to us, a uniformed force?

Dr. Morgan: Do not they supply these on the representations of an accredited trade union?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that has anything to do with it.

Dr. Morgan: It is very important.

Mr. Stewart: It is not in Scotland, because they are not in a trade union.

Dr. Morgan: They ought to be.

Mr. Stewart: I want an assurance that these Land Girls will be provided with the maximum equipment for them to carry on their work—leather jerkins, if possible, battle suits, if they can be provided, and certainly a supply of rubber boots.
Their second complaint is about the attitude of the community towards them. What is happening in Fife, and no doubt elsewhere, is that a lot of "welcome home" affairs are being arranged. Very often these girls are not invited to them. Dances are arranged, and in one case the girls were not allowed to enter the hall for a civilian dance because they were told that they were improperly dressed as they were wearing their breeches. This kind of petty slighting goes on throughout the country and makes one thoroughly ashamed, and I cannot help thinking that

it is the neglect of the Government that encourages it. If the Government would speak in the high terms necessary of the work these girls are doing perhaps the civilians would look upon them in a proper light.
Finally, and the most important point of all, I want to ask what is to happen to them when the war is over. These girls are watching. Great things are to be done for their sisters of the A.T.S. and neighbouring Services. They see how they are to be treated on demobilisation. There are to be post-war credits for girls who come out of the A.T.S., resettlement grants, civilian outfits in cash or kind, further education and training, all of which is to cost, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, £500,000,000; and, in addition to all that, gratuities to all girls in the Services, costing another £200,000,000. But nowhere have I seen mention of any provision for the fine women who are serving the country in the Land Army.
The Chancellor told us in the Debate that the aim of the Government has been to design the provision for settlement so as to cover all the needs of members of the Forces on their return to civil life. I beg that the gratuities for service in the Forces should be extended to all women who have been performing such fine work for the country. It is ungrateful of this country and unwise to treat them in this way. It is ungrateful because the Women's Land Army are a remarkable force. They work at frightfully difficult and heavy jobs—heavy for a woman to take on at any time, and particularly heavy for a woman who has been a typist, or a clerk, or an assistant in a shop. These women have volunteered their services without any pressure and it is ungrateful of the nation to treat them in this way. For the work they have done they deserve the highest credit of this House, and I am pleading for that to-night. Secondly, it is unwise to treat them in this way. The right hon. Gentleman knows better than I do of the need that will exist after the war is over for continued, and may be increased, food production. The necessity for the fullest cultivation of land will continue, as he himself has indicated, for three, four or five years after the war, and there will be need of every one of the workers now available.
There are 8,000 Women's Land Army girls in Scotland and 65,000 in England.


If we want those girls to stay on the land after the war, we shall have to give them something to which they can look forward or they will go. I plead that they should be given an incentive to remain. I know that I am speaking to the converted. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland wrote me in the clearest terms and he gave the assurance that the proper claims of the Women's Land Army to participate in post-war schemes of training and resettlement will always have his whole support. I am glad to hear that, and I hope I may expect some pledge from the right hon. Gentleman to-night. I know it must be a Government decision, and I do not know whether he is in a position to make a statement, but I hope that he will indicate the Government's position and that at the earliest possible moment there will be a statement as to what the Government intend to do for the Women's Land Army. We have been told about other parts of the civilian population and I ask that we should be told something about the Women's Land Army. I beg that an indication be given as soon as possible to show that, when these girls ultimately retire after the fine service they have rendered to the nation, the nation will recognise in a tangible way the work they have done.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: In these little Adjournment Debates we do not usually intervene from the Front Bench, on which I have the honour to sit, but I have been asked to say a few words in support of the plea so adequately put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart). There is a clear and very definite responsibility resting on the Government for the existence of these girls as Land Army girls. They brought the Army into existence, they advertised for the girls, they appealed to them, and in those glorious hours when everyone was considering how best to help the country these girls volunteered. If they had waited, a good many of them could have got into more attractive realms of Government employment, but, feeling, as women do, that the first need of men is food, they wanted to help to get more food produced. They appreciated that we were not likely to get enough from overseas. The Minister made that clear.
All our propaganda demonstrated the absolute need of still more food. There

were not enough men, so we must have the girls to help, and they volunteered for this work and have done it faithfully and well. It must be so because, as the Minister has expounded in this House, and has thrilled the country with it, the food production of our country has increased by 100 per cent. We used to import two-thirds and grow one-third. Under the present Ministry, and with the aid of the girls, we have grown two-thirds and only import one-third. So the nation owes a very great debt to all who have helped. Of course, the men have helped marvellously. The work of the agricultural labourers and the working farmers has been wonderful, and I know a good deal has been done by trade union action, but it is a peculiar occupation. There are so many scores of thousands of employees that the trade unions cannot recruit them or be so effective, as where they work in masses and one can get amongst them and organise them properly. One can organise only a small minority of them. And these girls are not exactly like the men. Many men have grown up in that occupation, but many of these girls were recruited from comfortable middle-class homes. I know girls who left such homes and went into the Land Army with nice tender hands and did farm work very well. They surprised everybody by the efficiency they displayed in doing this rough and sometimes difficult work.
My hon. Friend spoke about the bad weather this winter. Certainly there has been a record fall of snow and I think the whole country has been concerned. From the West of England, on the land flanking the Bristol Channel—perhaps that justifies my intervention—I have had complaints from friends whose girls are working on farms. They say their clothing is quite inadequate and unsuitable, that they are not sufficiently protected and there are many other conditions that are a proper subject for complaint. However, I am concerned that something should be done to honour these women—to treat them as generously as we are treating other women who have been in the Fighting Services. They have been fighting for our food, and therefore they should be honoured in every possible way, financially and otherwise, so that they may appreciate that they are not forgotten women, and that the country knows that they have served it


well and faithfully. I hope their very popular Minister will not let it be a blot on his record that we have neglected these girls, that he will give them a proper meed of praise, and not merely praise but every other kind of recognition we can give from the State for the great services they have been rendering.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: I only want to say how wholeheartedly I support the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) and the hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walkden). The great trouble is that the Minister of Agriculture has never really implemented the fact that this is an Army. These girls have been treated as civilians and have not had extended to them Service privileges. Thus we have members of the Women's Land Army excluded from N.A.A.F.I. canteens, although Italian prisoners, under certain conditions, are permitted to use them. On the other hand, when it suits the Ministry they are treated as Service people, and may be required to move from one part of the country to another at the shortest possible notice. That, I believe, may have been permissible in the past, but people are thinking about the future now, and just as the Minister of Reconstruction told us at one time that work on the Land implemented what the Services were doing we demand, on behalf of the Women's Land Army, the same gratuity on demobilisation, the same opportunities for re-entry into, and training in, civil life and, above all, a more generous recognition at the present time than they have received, especially from the Ministry itself.

Mr. Tinker: I think the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) said in his speech that in some parts of Scotland members of the Women's Land Army were treated with disrespect because of their dress. I merely want to tell him that, so far as I am aware, they are treated with nothing but respect in this country, and that we admire them for what they are doing and what they have done.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I want to ask for the Ministry's intervention with regard to girls when they have met with injuries during work

on the land. These women had practically a guarantee that they would not have to do service abroad, but I would rather be a typist in the A.T.S. or the W.A.A.F. in Paris, than a Land Army girl in some of the far-away districts of this country, and in the North of Scotland. Those girls undergo very great hardship indeed. One case brought to my notice was that of an attractive young girl who was in the Land Army and who fell from a tractor—which she had been operating with the same competence as a farmer—and gashed her leg very severely. This would not have mattered much in the case of a man, but it meant that this girl was disfigured for life. Moreover, she was paying £1 a week in order to maintain herself in hospital. I ask My right hon. Friend to see that these girls are treated as servants of the nation, and that the same allocations and substantial gratuities that are made to members of other Services, are granted to them so that they will not feel that the W.L.A. is the Cinderella of the Women's Services.

7.14 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. Tom Williams): In the very short time left at my disposal, I am sure Members will not expect me to give a detailed reply to the points which have been made. Hon. Members appear to have combed the dictionary to find suitable words on which to sing the praises of the Women's Land Army, and have left me no new words or phrases with which to add my meed of praise. I can only say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself, that we are second to none in our admiration and gratitude for members of the Land Army and for the work they have done in the course of this war. All the points which Members have raised to-day will be carefully examined, and I hope that that examination will prove fruitful.
I should, however, point out that there are several ways whereby the position of the Land Army differs from that of the Auxiliary Services. For instance, such girls are not subject to the same discipline as girls in the A.T.S., the W.A.A.F. or the W.R.N.S. The Land Army is not, in the main, a State-employed service. Mostly, these girls are in direct employment with the individual farmer. Of course, they receive the same rates of pay appropriate to the industry. Hon.


Members may tell me that it is a small wage, and I should not disagree with them. The Government, therefore, necessarily draw a distinction between Auxiliary Services, and the Women's Land Army. Nevertheless, I can assure hon. Members that their observations will be duly noted. Indeed, I can go further and tell them that the Government already have this matter under very active consideration—I believe I can say active and sympathetic consideration.

While I do not intend to reply to the questions relating to clothing and gumboots—a reply already having been given by the Joint Under-Secretary for Scotland—I can say that these matters are under active and sympathetic consideration, and I hope that hon. Members will be content with that assurance at this moment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter after Seven o'Clock.